Sunday 8th June 2025
Blog Page 891

Tim Farron interview: “This is the very moment that the country needs a bold and competent opposition”

Jack Hunter
-
0
Tim Farron interview: “This is the very moment that the country needs a bold and competent opposition”

“Who will speak for liberal Britain?” It’s the question which is shaping our politics, and which the provocative front page of this week’s New Statesman posed. The collapse of the Labour Party as an effective opposition, it posited, is spoken of as a self-evident fact. The SNP speak only for Scotland’s interests. The debate which will define British politics in years to come is to be had within the Conservative party. With Theresa May triggering Article 50 last week to usher in a hard Brexit, an effective, scrutinising opposition has never been so necessary—and so absent.

So, one may ask, what of the only party with the word “liberal” in its name? The Liberal Democrats may have just nine MPs, but when I spoke to an energetic Tim Farron a few weeks ago, he was clear on their ambitions to fill the opposition-shaped void.

Does he believe the Lib Dems can speak for the progressive centre of UK politics? “Yes, absolutely. On a personal level I like Jeremy Corbyn, he’s a good guy and sticks to his principles. But his catastrophic leadership of the Labour party means that they are currently providing no opposition whatsoever to this nationalist government’s desire to force a hard-Brexit on this country.

“The Labour leadership wrote a blank cheque to the Conservative government on Brexit when they forced the vast majority of their MPs to vote with the Government (to trigger Article 50 in February). I believe that history will judge them harshly for their failure to stand firm in defence of future generations of Britons who will suffer as a result.

“This is the very moment that the country needed a bold and competent opposition.”

Can the Lib Dems provide it? Faced with the weakness of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, many have called for a “progressive alliance” to take on the Conservatives. In fact Farron, despite previously labelling Jeremy Corbyn as “spineless”, “incompetent” and “toxic”, has called for a new consensus of “progressives working together”.

“During the referendum, I really enjoyed spending time campaigning with progressives in other parties,” Farron tells me. “There are many of us with much more in common than what divides us.” He cites the Green Party leader Caroline Lucas’ decision to endorse Sarah Olney, the Lib Dem candidate, in the Richmond Park by-election. Olney went on to overturn Zac Goldsmith’s 23,000 Conservative majority.

For Farron, finding new alliances is one of his imminent priorities. He says how he is “deeply concerned that as things stand, with the situation in the Labour Party, that we could now be landed with a Conservative government for a generation unless an attractive, strong and united progressive alternative can be presented.”

He says he is aware of “conversations happening in constituencies between different groups.” And beyond this, reports are surfacing of talks between Lib Dem staff and Conservative and Labour moderates. Last week, Anna Soubry said she would consider joining a new “moderate, sensible, forward thinking” party.

Farron says he plans to “work alongside people who share many of our values, who are progressives, who want a Britain that is both successful and fair, who want the UK to be at the heart of Europe. The form of any cooperation is yet to be clear, but I am determined that there should be cross party conversations that could lead to this kind of cooperation and hopefully prevent a conservative hegemony in this country lasting many, many years.”

Yet if opinion polls are to be believed, such a progressive pact of Labour, Liberals and Greens would do little to shift the debate which is currently taking place between the centre-right and far-right. A recent poll showed the combined total of the UK’s centre-left and left comes to little over 40%, while the Tories and UKIP would gain 57% of the vote.

It is perhaps for this reason that Farron sees the grassroots mobilisation of a new movement as his other main objective. “My contribution to this must be to build the Liberal Democrats so that we can ensure that this movement comes about.” He thinks they are making “good progress” on this front. Indeed, a post-Brexit bounce may be fuelling projections which suggest the Lib Dems will win 100 council seats in local elections next month.

Galvanizing the Liberal Democrats’ brand—still bruised and hollowed-out from their years in coalition—must surely be an essential priority for any electoral success. Amongst students, the issue of tuition fees (which Farron himself voted against), continues to fracture the potential for any broad-based support.

Does Farron believe it is possible to win back their support? “Yes, and it’s already happening. Our party membership has grown by over 33,000 since last June, and many of these new members are young people and students.”

He believes that Europe has changed everything, and sees it providing the possibility for a revival. “As you know 18 to 24 year olds voted overwhelmingly in favour of Remain last June. It is you, the youth of Britain, who will have to live with the fateful consequences of this Government’s choice to pursue a hard Brexit more than anybody in Parliament or the Government front bench.

“Students understand that the Lib Dems won’t accept the damage that this course of action will do to the future of young people in this country.”

But Farron is wary of becoming defined as a solely pro-EU party. “Students like our progressive stance on other issues important to them, such as mental health, climate change and welcoming refugees into the country”, he adds.

Farron says he “wholeheartedly supports” the findings of the Higher Education Policy Institute’s recent report on university students’ mental health. He suggests increased funding for counselling services, changes to allow students to register with a GP in two places, and the provision of necessary materials for staff in regular interaction with students.

“We all need to do more to encourage open conversations about mental health—in universities and elsewhere—to tackle the stigma and encourage more people to seek help.”

The challenges facing self-styled “progressives” like Farron are not unique to Britain. From Democrats in the US to moderate opponents of Putin’s kleptocracy in Russia, liberals are struggling to articulate a narrative which can convince displaced electorates. But gaps in the resurgent nationalism may be appearing. The anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders was seen off in the Dutch elections last month, whilst the centrist French presidential favourite Emmanuel Macron is displaying how liberals can use unconventional structures to take on the far-right.

If opposition to the unexpected post-liberal turn in world politics is giving progressives new unity, Farron is clearly optimistic about this shift. He is firm on how the UK should approach Donald Trump’s “racist and inhumane policies.”

“President Trump appears to have chosen to turn his back on the shared culture of civilisation and tolerance which has underpinned the post-war relationship between the UK and the US,” he says. “We should not be seen to celebrate this or to simply shrug our shoulders about it.”

He offers a chilling condemnation of Theresa May’s apparently welcoming policy towards the US President. “Donald Trump is a successful businessman. In his book ‘The Art of the Deal’ in 1987, he explained that the best time to do a deal is when the other guy is desperate for a deal. It seems very clear to me that having chosen to sever our ties with civilised democracies in Europe our Prime Minister is now desperate for a deal with the USA, irrespective of whether it will do Britain any good and irrespective of whether it will damage Britain’s record of standing up to persecution, racism and tyranny.”

It is obvious from Farron’s words that he believes the necessary base exists for new movements, but how far, or for how long, such a party or grouping could appeal beyond leafy Richmond suburbs remains unclear. Targeting the Remain vote is an understandable short-term tactic for a party with eight MPs, but as the salience of the issue is lost, and the Lib Dems become defined as a pro-EU party, there is little to suggest they could speak as a nationwide opposition. And so, the question remains: who will speak for liberal Britain?

“Britain needs a progressive party that is serious about power and positive about Europe,” Farron says. “Liberal Democrats are ready to take up the mantle.” We will see.

‘Logan’: his heart is bigger than his bite

Charles Britton
-
0
‘Logan’: his heart is bigger than his bite

As a self-confessed Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) fanboy, I had previously consigned myself to ignoring anything produced by Twentieth Century Fox which did not feature a certain Ryan Reynolds. Imagine my surprise when, after a maligned first attempt and a mediocre sequel, the final Wolverine film surpassed all my expectations and made me reconsider what a superhero film could be. Logan is a fitting conclusion to the tale of the mutant mascot, and though it relishes in gory extravagance, it balances this with a compelling and heart-wrenching story, one which elevates it from a violent romp to an emotional marvel.

The year is 2029 and, since the X-Men have disbanded, the titular Logan has fallen into decrepitude, caring for a similarly ailing Charles Xavier (with Patrick Stewart reprising the role) in an obscure region of Mexico. As Logan’s remaining strength decays, he is pursued by a stranger who pleads with him to take a lone mutant girl to the Canadian border. What ensues is a perilous road trip with a corrupt private organisation bent on weaponizing infant mutants ruthlessly stalking the trio.

To synopsise Logan in such a way is, to some extent, to do it an injustice. The film is steeped in a gritty atmosphere, from the makeup artist’s uncanny ability to make even Hugh Jackman look downright terrible, to the frequent brutal murders, from the dark filters to the close-up shots of people looking tormented every couple of minutes; the tone is oppressive, and makes a pleasant change from the more laid-back attitude of Disney’s MCU.

For all of Logan’s grittiness, however, it still manages to punctuate its story with frequent comic and touching moments. As a testament to Jackman’s nuanced performance, one scene where Logan experiences a taste of family life is particularly noteworthy and was so well-executed that it had me close to tears.

The Wolverine’s swansong is not without its own flaws, however. The villains in the film are uninspired to say the least, serving purely as adequately threatening fodder for Logan to slash his way through and as a catalyst for his character development. Shaky camera angles in some action sequences mar close-quarters combat encounters, muddying the detail. The MCU films handle this better, which is impressive considering how CGI-intensive they are by comparison. Finally, the structure and pacing of the narrative is formulaic and quickly becomes predictable: I learned to expect armoured vehicles to arrive out of nowhere for an obligatory action set-piece if there had been a lull for more than ten minutes.

Undoubtedly, Logan’s greatest quality for me was that, at times, I completely forgot I was watching a superhero film. I was so enchanted by the poignant storytelling that I forgot that this was a film about a man with claws and regenerative abilities tearing up faceless military types. Instead, I was watching a cynical, tortured character develop into a father figure, overcoming all odds to protect those he loves. As the simple title suggests, Logan is the raw, stripped-back tale of a flawed man.

Overall, Logan represents a bold move in superhero cinema. By acknowledging that Jackman’s portrayal of Wolverine inevitably had to end, Logan is allowed to grapple with themes of mortality, ageing, family, and identity. In a world where the MCU’s momentum is guaranteed by seemingly endless contract deals, origin stories, and crossover spectacles, Logan is brave enough to end an era in style. It is an intimate character study which champions the idea of fighting for something, even if that something does not seem real, for the people one loves. With how remarkably that message is presented here, it could not be more potent. In fact, Logan might just be one of the greatest ‘superhero’ films of all time.

A quarter of Jewish students fear anti-Semitic hate crime, NUS report finds

Jack Hunter
-
0
A quarter of Jewish students fear anti-Semitic hate crime, NUS report finds

A quarter of Jewish students in the UK fear anti-Semitic hate crime on campus, a new study has found.

A report released by the National Union of Students (NUS) found that 26 per cent of Jewish students were either fairly worried or very worried about being subjected to a physical attack, property damage, verbal abuse or theft as a result of their belief.

Almost two-thirds of Jewish students had not been the victim of crime at their place of study, but two thirds (66 per cent) said they believed they were targeted a result of their faith.

28 per cent of students said they had received personal abuse over social media.

However, the report found that a majority of Jewish students do not believe the NUS would respond appropriately to allegations of anti-Semitism if they arose. The NUS must “regain the trust of Jewish students”, the report concluded.

It comes amid ongoing concerns over allegations of anti-Semitism within the NUS.

The organisation’s president, Malia Bouattia, was recently denounced for “outright racism” by the Home Affairs Select Committee, after describing Birmingham University as a “zionist outpost”.

Bouattia has denied claims of anti-Semitism but apologised for any offence caused.

The report also raised concern that “Jewish students have reported that they do not feel their institution understands their needs.”

42 per cent of students reported there was no kosher food on or near campus, while 59 per cent said their university did not avoid scheduling classes and exams during Sabbath and Jewish religious festivals.

Almost half of students said they did not feel comfortable voicing their opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc) welcomed the report, and urged the University and OUSU to adopt its recommendations.

In a statement to Cherwell, JSoc said: “We are proud that Oxford is one of the best campuses in the country for Jewish students; there is a thriving Jewish life, a fact which has been recognised by both OUSU and the UJS (Union of Jewish Students) in recent years.

“We are thankful for the positive relationships with the University, the colleges and OUSU, and are hopeful that these will continue.

“However, many of the concerns in the report resonate with the Jewish Society’s members and, alongside recent events, demonstrate that more can be done to improve the Jewish student experience.

“In particular, Jewish students regularly encounter hostility and offensive debate when engaging in discussions around the Israel-Palestine conflict. Jewish students have also faced difficulties regarding the provision of kosher food and the scheduling of exams on religious festivals.

“We call upon OUSU to adopt the report’s recommendations, and to continue their effort to make Oxford more welcoming for Jewish students.”

The report also explored Jewish student representation in university student unions.

It found that a majority of Jewish students feel able to engage with their individual student unions, with 75 per cent saying that they voted in student elections and 69 per cent saying that they always or usually were able to participate in student union societies.

However, 43 per cent said they did not feel their student union understood their needs as Jewish students, and 51 per cent said they did not feel represented by their student union.

Sandy Downs, OUSU VP for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, said: “It’s fantastic to see that Jewish students have high engagement with their students’ unions across the country, and we should be using that relationship to help affect change.

“I look forward to working with JSOC and the NUS to consider how best to interpret and enact the recommendations in the report, and its good to see that lots of the suggestions are things which OUSU is already working on (including Kosher food provision and religious festival considerations in timetabling).”

The report’s author, the NUS VP Rob Young, said: “In a wider context of increasing anti-Semitism across the UK, we know that Jewish students have been feeling increasingly uncomfortable on University campuses and that there is a lot of work to be done to change that.

“This research has given us a greater understanding of some of the challenges faced by Jewish students in Universities and in the student movement. I hope that the sector will act on the recommendations in this report.

“Everyone should feel able to participate fully in campus life and NUS and I are fully committed to ensuring that that is the case.”

An Oxford University spokesperson said: “We welcome the NUS report and are encouraged to hear that so many Jewish students across the UK are actively engaged in university life, and that Oxford’s JSoc values its positive relationship with the University. We are working with colleges to address specific issues mentioned in the report, such as the provision of kosher food and the scheduling of exams.

“On the subject of hostility and antisemitism, we have always made it clear that no form of harassment or victimisation will be tolerated at Oxford. We expect all members of the University community to treat each other with respect, courtesy and consideration, including when engaging in political debate.

“We would strongly urge anyone who has experienced harassment or intimidation on the grounds of religion or belief to come forward and report any incident to their college or to the University.”

Lazy make-up-beauty tips every busy girl needs to know

Beth Brand
-
0
Lazy make-up-beauty tips every busy girl needs to know

There are times when we all love to spend hours perfecting that smoky eye, piling on the layers and using an army of brushes to get it all done. However, when you’re rushed for time or just feeling plain lazy (i.e. 99% of days in Oxford) it can all seem like a lot of effort, and doesn’t warrant the stress when you also have a lengthy to-do list to tackle by 9am. Luckily, there are plenty of tricks out there which can help minimise that precious time spent in front of a mirror. Next time you’ve woken up late, are running out the door to a lecture, or simply can’t be bothered, these are the techniques and products you should look to for maximum impact with minimal effort. 

Hair styling
Dry shampoo is one of the biggest beauty life-savers. Perfect to revive flat third-day hair with a needed boost of volume and texture. Give it a good shake and spray into your roots to freshen and keep any greasiness at bay. (Try Colab’s Invisible Dry Shampoo in 5 different scents for no chalky white residue, £3.49)

For super-quick Scandi-inspired waves without the fuss, simply plait your hair into four sections and straighten the entire length of each one. Leave your plaits in for a few minutes to cool, then undo and separate. Or even plan ahead and get styled in your sleep to save extra time. After an evening shower, work a lightweight styling cream (like Bumble & Bumble’s Styling Creme, £22) through damp hair and braid away. In the morning, undo the plaits and you’ll be rewarded with dry, effortless waves.

Skincare
If your skin is in good condition you’ll significantly reduce the amount of makeup you need, so make sure to take good care of it! Face masks are a low-maintenance and easy way to treat your skin. Try an overnight mask (like Origins Drink Up Intensive, £24) to rehydrate your skin while you sleep. In the mornings, consider swapping your usual moisturiser for a hydrating mist (such as Caudalie’s Grape Water, £6). Quicker than waiting for a cream to sink in, a mist contains just enough hydration to smooth skin and allow products to apply more easily.

Base
Applying a flawless base with SPF, primer, foundation and setting powder is notoriously time-intensive, so try using a BB cream or tinted moisturiser instead. These products condense many steps into one, and are designed to protect, moisturize and provide a little coverage to even out your skin tone all at once. Plus, you can easily apply these with your fingers to save time faffing about with brushes or beauty blenders. My favourites are Dr Jart + Water Fuse Beauty Balm for £18, and the Nars Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturiser for £29.50.

Concealer
If we could only use one beauty product each day, many would opt for concealer, and for good reason too. It can be used to cover a multitude of sins: cancel out dark circles under the eyes, blot out redness, even skin-tone and conceal any blemishes. By pinpointing spots with a good concealer, you can achieve flawless-looking skin in 30 seconds without the hassle of applying a full face of foundation. The Urban Decay Naked Skin Concealer for £19 is both radiant enough for use under the eyes and provides enough coverage for blemishes.

Make-up multitaskers
Just like the BB cream, you should look out for makeup products that have multiple uses to save both time and money- always a win-win for students. There are lots of these products on the market at the moment, including the iconic Nars Multiple, £29. This multi-purpose stick in 13 shades can be blended onto cheeks, lips and eyes in a matter of seconds and so is perfect for minimal makeup days. Or you could even use your favourite balmy pink or peachy lipstick shade instead.

Eyes
Now is not the time for elaborate eye looks. Certainly don’t attempt a winged liner if you’re in a rush, however tempting it always seems to be. Stick to less precarious products, like kohl, which doesn’t carry the risk of running (like the Charlotte Tilbury Rock ‘N’ Kohl pencil, £19). Similarly, choose cream eye shadow pencils over powder for quick application (the By Terry Ombre Blackstar eye shadows are pretty pricey at £29 each, but you won’t regret the splurge). Simply scribble over the lid and smudge out with your finger for a long-lasting finish that looks much fancier than it actually is.

These practical tips are so easy you’ll be able to follow them even in your half-asleep daze — your morning primping routine can no longer be your reason for running late. Now there’s even more excuse to snooze that alarm just one more time and catch up on some much-needed beauty sleep.

Five Guys burger restaurant could be set to open in Oxford

Theo Davies-Lewis
-
0
Five Guys burger restaurant could be set to open in Oxford

Popular American burger chain Five Guys could be opening a new store in Oxford later in 2017.

The chain plans to move into Magdalen Street, next to the Odeon cinema and the former Lola Lo unit.

Oxford City Council have been lodged with a change of use application to convert the Jaegar clothing shop to make use of the ground floor of the unit.

Five Guys was founded in 1986 as a single restaurant in Virginia, but was reported to have over 1,000 sites in 2013. Fans of the upmarket chain include former US President Barack Obama.

Cherwell‘s Food and Drink Editor, Susie Finlay, offered her own analysis of the news: “With ‘proper’ burgers at Byron and ‘dry-aged prime cuts’ at The Rickety Press, the possible arrival of Five Guys in Oxford just marks a new addition to an already sizeable line of artisan-style burger restaurants, which market themselves as better quality, or more ‘honest’ than the next outlet.

“But this isn’t purely an Oxford phenomenon. The cult of gourmet burgers has taken the entirety of the UK by storm. By 2019, the market is expected to be valued at £3.3 billion. I question whether there’s significant substance behind the slick publicity and aesthetic design, but one thing is for sure – burgers have come a long way from the McDonald’s Drive Thru.”

One Oxford student, who wished to remain anonymous, shared their frustration over the plans: “It’s dismaying to see Oxford once again add to its quite ridiculously competitive culinary scene. Another burger bar to add to Gourmet Burger Kitchen and Byron sitting next to each other, not to mention Banana Tree and Thaikun opposite each other with Giraffe, a poor man’s Nando’s, not much further up George Street than the place it badly rips off.

“I wish that companies would show some imagination next time they try to bait our money with hot food.”

St. Peter’s College undergraduate and prominent food blogger Rosie Crawford, told Cherwell: “There’s so many American stores and multiple burger chains in Oxford—there may as well be another McDonald’s or Burger King! I’m sure these would be more popular with the student crowd, anyway.”

Crawford added: “While it may be attractive for tourists, there are very little vegan options despite such a large percentage of vegetarians at the university.”

The UK welcomed the first Five Guys restaurant outside North America in July 2013, in London on Long Acre in Covent Garden—one day before the opening of Shake Shack’s first UK outlet. The chain continued to expand its UK locations, opening next in Reading, Berkshire. The chain now has 27 restaurants open across the UK.

A decision on the Oxford store is expected by May 24.

Can we trust the new episode of ‘Rick and Morty’?

Jack Allsopp
-
0
Can we trust the new episode of ‘Rick and Morty’?

Rick and Morty returned to our screens on 1 April, 18 months after the hard-hitting finale of season two. Was the wait worth it? Did Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland top the mind-bending and emotionally fraught season two premiere ‘A Rickle in Time’ this time around?

Perhaps the biggest question on our lips at the end of the weekend’s episode is whether we can trust anything that we have seen. Harmon and Roiland have rightly garnered a reputation for deviously manipulating and subverting audience expectations, and thus this author is not wholly convinced what took place in ‘The Rickshank Rickdemption’ was strictly ‘true’: major developments in the episode didn’t fit with the established premises and tone of the show.

Most obviously, although Rick’s disdain for his son-in-law is an integral element of Rick and Morty, the thought that he manipulated Beth to divorce Jerry seems a step too far for our protagonist. Remember when he was prepared to die to save Morty’s life at the end of ‘A Rickle in Time’? Furthermore, the episode being released on April Fool’s Day should definitely send our brains into paranoid overdrive.

Yet, one must entertain very seriously the notion that the events of the episode were true, as much as this would leave this author disappointed. Not only would Rick’s treatment of Jerry fundamentally alter the audience’s understanding of him — a flawed, selfish, shallow and callous character yes, but ultimately compassionate — but would also spell an end to the Beth-Jerry marital dynamic. Theirs is an underrated duo, with their dysfunctional marriage offering some of Rick and Morty’s most ingenious plot lines; the ‘Mr MeSeeks’ episode ranking as perhaps the show’s greatest adventure which did not involve the titular characters.

Furthermore, we must also now face up to Rick being responsible for the death of most, if not all, other Ricks and Mortys in every other alternate universe. Whilst murder is nothing new to Rick and Morty, this would be an especially unhappy development, given that some of the best plots involve alternate versions of the title characters entering the fray. Such a development would also again lead us to question whether we can truly consider Rick a ‘good’ character: killing different versions of himself was palatable, but being responsible for the deaths of different Mortys is another thing altogether. This would risk blemishing the cartoon’s track record of staying on the right side of the morally precarious tightrope it so often walks, as it would be hard for Harmon and Roiland to re-alter our perception of Rick back to a damaged but loveable rogue from the irredeemably bad human being that he may now have become.

So whilst this author has mixed feelings about the new episode, this in itself is a testament to the supremely high quality which Rick and Morty has consistently lived up to. We were once satisfied with South Park and The Simpsons pushing the bounds of polite humour, but then reverting back to the narrative status quo after 25 minutes or so. Rick and Morty has pushed us to demand of cartoons not only strong, dynamic narrative progression, but darker humour than any other animated series which has gained a mass, mainstream viewership. Rick and Morty is a trailblazing television show, yet one can hope — maybe somewhat naively — that Roiland and Harmon have not pushed their concept too far, and dealt us too heavy a dose of existentialism and nihilism by turning our beloved Rick into an antagonist.

Oxford LGBTQ+ Society renews condemnation of Jenni Murray

Jordan Bernstein
-
0
Oxford LGBTQ+ Society renews condemnation of Jenni Murray

Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society has renewed their condemnation of broadcaster Jenni Murray, following national media coverage.

This week’s Sunday Times ran an article on the topic, headlined “Oxford students try to gag Jenni Murray as ‘transphobic'”.

LGBTQ Society originally criticised Murray for comments made in a comment article written in The Times, which it claims “propagate transphobia and transmisogyny”.

Among the more disputed parts of Murray’s article were lines such as “Be trans, be proud—but don’t call yourself a real woman”, and the argument that those who have lived as men “with all the privilege that entails” have not had the same experiences as cis-females.

In a statement published yesterday (Monday 3 April) the Society have since reiterated their “stance on platforming and free speech, their differences, and why this type of action is necessary”.

The statement, released on Facebook in conjunction with the LGBTQ+ Campaign and WomCam, said that Murray’s comments “infer a single, unified experience of womanhood and deny the existence of trans women’s womanhood pre transition or coming out.”

The Society spent the weekend protesting the decision of the Oxford Literary Festival to have Murray as a guest speaker.

Whilst citing their own right to free speech as what gave them the ability to condemn Murray’s comments unequivocally as “transphobic”, they qualified that Murray’s mirror right did not give her “the right to be given an uncontested platform at a high-profile event where many people will be attending and paying undivided attention to the speaker.”

It was also stressed in the statement that opinions such as those of Murray “are not ‘just opinions’, especially when those opinions have a harmful impact on the lives of a marginalised, oft-targeted and vulnerable group of people.”

The statement also made plain the fact that the LGBTQ+ Society, Campaign and WomCam feared lending mainstream credence to such ideas, stemming from the statement’s central theme that to invite Murray was neither apolitical or neutral.

It summarised that “[t]o give Murray a speaking position at a large and prestigious event like the Oxford Literary Festival, which involves paying her an author fee of £150, is to both endorse and reward her transphobic views. Transmisogyny will be propagated, validated and above all normalised.”

When talking specifically of a protest held over the weekend, it was emphasised that the Society’s views on what they considered to be transphobic comments were not just tolerated, but widely supported.

“The protest was attended by a wide variety of people, of different genders and was not limited to students as local community members joined us too… further proving our call to action is not a fringe one, but one, supported by many when the dialogue is opened.”

Katt Walton told Cherwell: “Speaking on behalf of the LGBTQ+ Society as the president I would like to again reiterate how important it is to call out transphobia and transmisogyny and the dangerous ramifications it can have.

“Feminism is not feminism if it fails to include and understand the womanhood of trans women. We, the Society, will always stand by our trans students and our support for them will be unwavering.”

In a statement, the University said that it was “committed to supporting transgender students and staff and to providing an inclusive environment that promotes equality and diversity. We are also committed to freedom of expression.”

Murray’s address went ahead as planned on Sunday at the Sheldonian Theatre with a talk entitled ‘A History of Britain in 21 Women’.

“Elegant, witty, sophisticated, remarkable”: The ‘Philanthropist’

Katie Sayer and Emily Lawford
-
0
“Elegant, witty, sophisticated, remarkable”: The ‘Philanthropist’

Two very nervous teenagers, your Cherwell stage eds were feeling rather out of their depth when the opportunity to interview the cast of The Philanthropist popped up in our inbox. Directed by award-winning Simon Callow (CBE) and boasting an all-star cast including the likes of Lily Cole, Simon Bird, Matt Berry, Charlotte Ritchie and Tom Rosenthal, it was hard not to feel apprehensive when we arrived in central London for the interview of a lifetime. Fortunately for our nerves, the cast could not have been lovelier.

“This is your first interview? How are you feeling?” grins Tom Rosenthal, straddling a chair and explaining “they’re really bad for your back, these red things!”

His infectious enthusiasm is symptomatic of the energy shared by the entire cast. They all seem genuinely excited by the play and are eager to share that passion. Simon Callow speaks uninterrupted for almost half our time slot when asked what it was about The Philanthropist that first attracted him.

“I absolutely love Christopher (Hampton)’s tone as a writer: it’s elegant, it’s witty, it’s sophisticated, it’s remarkable,” he enthuses, providing at least another ten complimentary adjectives, and Lily Cole agrees: “it’s brilliantly written, witty and at the same time incredibly political and philosophical”. For Matt Berry the attraction was more simple: “because Simon was directing”.

Indeed, the sense of camaraderie between cast members is striking. Charlotte Ritchie and Simon Bird in particular have a steady repartee that makes the interview feel more like a cosy chat, and it is clear that the wit and raillery that distinguish the play are equally prevalent off stage.

As Callow rightly says, the cast is “particularly brilliant in comic work, a great ensemble,” and with so many comedy stars assembled there is one obvious question to ask—who is the funniest in real life? “We could just choose each other,” Charlotte Ritchie says to Simon Bird, to which he replies, “we could, but I’m trying to be honest”.

“Simon [Callow]. He’s in charge,” says Tom Rosenthal, and then adds, “He’s like a book! He’s just got all these Oscar Wilde quotations in his head.”

“I can’t choose anyone” Charlotte Ritchie begins—“because none of us make you laugh,” Simon Bird finishes.

Most of our generation will recognise the cast from their forays into television comedy, from The Inbetweeners (Simon Bird) and Fresh Meat (Charlotte Ritchie) to Plebs (Tom Rosenthal). Is it wildly different acting on stage than on television?

“For me they are utterly, utterly different media” says Simon Callow. “In the theatre, you always have to project it out to your audience, whatever the size, whereas in film the camera overhears you, it’s an interested bystander who watches your performance”.

For Matt Berry, acting in sit-coms acts as a happy halfway house between the two. “Your performance is tailored around the laughs” he says, “but the biggest difference is this (play) is sort of like jumping out of a plane – once you’re out that’s it”.

Another thing that is perhaps notable is how young the cast is. The Philanthropist is set at an Oxbridge-type university, but this production marks the first time that the characters have been played by actors of the age that Hampton intended. Has The Philanthropist brought back memories of student life?

“You’re at Oxford?” Lily Cole asks. “I went to Cambridge, which I imagine isn’t wildly dissimilar, and you get these very politically conscious, bordering on self-righteous groups, and this is a play about those kind of people”.

Simon Bird, who also went to Cambridge, agrees that “I guess there were sort of fusty old professors who were quite similar to some of the characters in this,” to which Charlotte Ritchie adds that “when I was at uni we normally socialised out in a bar, it would be like dancing, it wouldn’t be sitting and having a kind of intellectual conversation… I always imagined Oxford would be like that?” We assure her it is definitely not.

Is there any advice they would give to their 18-year-old selves? “Don’t go to uni!” Charlotte Ritchie and Lily Cole both say immediately, before adding, although less convincingly, “it’s a joke. It’s definitely a joke. Just enjoy it”.

“Put yourself out there,” Simon Bird proffers, and Lily Cole agrees that “anything is possible”. Tom Rosenthal’s advice is perhaps more topical: “put on a production of The Philanthropist”.

The natural chemistry between the cast members and the energy and enthusiasm they all share certainly bodes well for the production, which is set to be a sell-out show. Christopher Hampton’s The Philanthropist, directed by Simon Callow, is at The Trafalgar Studios from 3rd April to 22nd July. Tickets: www.atgtickets.com/the-philanthropist .

What does Brexit mean for the future of scientific research in the UK?

Cherwell Archive
-
0
What does Brexit mean for the future of scientific research in the UK?

Scientific research is more reliant on international collaboration than ever before. Combining intellectual and physical resources around the world has proven to be central in advancing modern science with over half of all papers published in the UK having an international co-author (60% of which, are with our EU partners). Similarly, international collaboration has led to projects such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the European Space Agency (ESA) that would otherwise have been simply impossible.  But, with Brexit on the horizon, what does the future hold for both current and prospective UK researchers?

Prior to the referendum, the Royal Society identified three major topics of consideration regarding the role of the EU in research in the UK: funding, mobility, and regulations.

Firstly, and most obviously, is the importance of EU funding. In 2014, the EU greatly increased its funding for research through the introduction of a programme called Horizon 2020. The programme plans to provide a total of €74.8bn for research, mostly across Europe, between 2014 and 2020. To date, the UK is the second largest benefactor, second only to Germany. Overall, 11% of all research funding received by UK universities originate from EU sources, and whilst it is guaranteed that this financing will continue until the UK formally leaves the EU, which could be as late as March 2019, the government has been keen to state that a post-Brexit UK will still aim to be at the forefront of research.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Phillip Hammond, clarified in a press release that “Horizon research funding granted before we leave the EU will be guaranteed by the Treasury after we leave.” This is a vow complimented by a £4.7bn increase in the Autumn Statement towards research and development over the next four years.

Some, however, are sceptical about the government’s response to Brexit. The campaign group Scientists for EU described the Autumn Statement “as a confirmation of the bare essentials, but nothing more”, expressing concerns that the government are still yet “to confirm that, should we leave the EU science programme, the same amounts or more will be available directly from HM Treasury”.

Troubling reports regarding the relationship between scientists from the UK and the EU have also arisen. A report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has noted numerous cases of collaborators in multi-national projects pressuring UK researchers to withdraw from projects. Scientists for EU have reported 40 such examples of so-called “Horizon 2020 disruptions” whereby partner pressure has resulted in resignations in leading roles of research projects.

Clearly, clarity regarding the relationship between the EU and a post-Brexit UK needs to be established. The uncertain terms of Brexit have cast a shadow on the future of EU citizens in the UK, who also form 16% of all academic staff in UK universities. Despite the British Government confirming that EU students are guaranteed no changes in their tuition fees for the duration of their studies (provided they are starting before the 2017/18 academic year), there are visible signs of discomfort; UCAS have reported a 7% decline in EU applicants in 2017.

Nevertheless, Brexit could potentially open the door for opportunities outside of Europe. A study commissioned by the Higher Education Policy Institute think-tank predicts that Brexit will result in an extra £187m per year in tuition fees for UK universities, as the fall in EU students are partly compensated by the introduction of non-EU students. Regarding research opportunities, the USA is currently the UK’s single most frequent collaborator, and talks are underway to strengthen the relationship between the two countries’ research institutions. Speaking to the BBC about the relationship of the UK and USA, President of the Royal Society, Professor Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, noted that “cooperation between our two countries would undoubtedly be a good thing… but it should be regarded as an addition to, rather than a substitute for, cooperation with our European colleagues”.

The effects of Brexit on UK research will be felt for years to come. Dependent on the agreements made between the UK, the EU, and the rest of the world, Brexit may eventually serve to broaden the prospects of UK researchers outside of Europe. The initial struggle however, seems to lie in re-establishing both the conveniences of staying in the EU and the opportunities that it currently offers.

Review: ‘Free Fire’

Nancy Epton
-
0
Review: ‘Free Fire’

Accuse Ben Wheatley of what you like, but diluting violence for the sake of any of the audience’s sensibilities certainly isn’t a criticism that can be levelled against him. Following on from recent projects such as the surreal Kill List and Sightseers, the director changes his chameleonic colours once more, entering the arena of gritty action.

Throughout Free Fire it’s difficult to escape Tarantino comparisons, particularly Reservoir Dogs, due to the enclosed warehouse setting, betrayals, excessive violence as well as Wheatley and Amy Jump’s witty screenplay. Following a brief period of relative calm in which the two sides eventually reach an agreement on an arms deal, a grudge between the back-up men of each group sets chaos in motion. The ensuing stand-off is intermingled with quotable dialogue, much of which springs from the mouth of Sharlto Copley’s flamboyant Vernon. Typical of his braggadocio is a mid-fight monologue where he justifies his homemade cardboard arm shield as “protection from infection” to one of his associates. Wheatley also doesn’t skimp on his trademark colourful language, which is emphasised most eloquently when Frank (Michael Smiley) berates one of his assailants as a “fucking chocolate teapot”.

Yet despite the volcanic momentum that is created in the introduction of the film’s large ensemble of characters, the middle section suffers from a lack of variation and constant gunfights. Even though Wheatley describes the film as “mercilessly short”, he is nonetheless unable to bring the repetitive second act to a satisfying conclusion in time for the slightly underwhelming final twist. Similarly to High Rise, the enclosed environments that Wheatley has grown accustomed to utilising in recent projects may well heighten the chaos of his situations, but he often fails to develop the characters within them to their full extent.

1...890891892...2,507Page 891 of 2,507

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