Wednesday 16th July 2025
Blog Page 964

Oxford students protest Higher Education Bill

0

OUSU have funded lecturers and students to protest in central London against proposed Higher Education Bill.

Organised by the NUS, students 15,000 took part in a protest on Saturday in London against the Higher Education Bill proposed by the British government. Protestors held signs saying “You can’t spell HE Bill without hell” and “Value my mind not my bank account.”

The Bill, proposed in 2015, plans to increase tuition fees in correspondence to inflation from 2017 onwards. It will create new university league tables based on teaching quality which will allow some universities to raise tuition fees higher than others.

This could raise fees from £9,000 to £9,250 per year. Malia Bouattia, NUS President, called this new proposed Bill an “ideologically led market experiment.”

OUSU urged Oxford students to attend Saturday’s protest and organised coaches leaving from Wadham College to take students there.

OUSU commented, “We believe that Oxford students should have their voices heard on a national platform and we aim to facilitate the engagement of our students’ voices with issues of national policy wherever we can.”

Balliol, St John’s and Pembroke JCR have also expressed their opposition to the Bill to increase university fees. The Balliol motion called the university’s decision to participate in the Bill as “detrimental to access.” Pembroke JCR donated also £100 towards coaches to take students to Saturday’s protest.

After originally expressing an intention to increase fees for all students, the University of Oxford have decided not to raise tuition fees for students enrolled before 2016. This decision came after OUSU posted a video in September, calling the bill “outrageously unfair” and urged students to sign petitions and pass motions in JCRs.

However, the university have not opposed the increase in fees for students enrolling from the year commencing 2016. Financial models have estimated that some intuitions can charge up to £12,000 a year by 2026 should this Bill pass. OUSU expressed that the initial £250 increase is “a small step on a slippery slope.” The Bill passed by a majority in Commons on Monday.

Sean O’Neill, PPEist at Hertford, was a protestor, told Cherwell, “We need to defend education however we can, in the face of a government which won’t put our students and academics first.

“This is clearly an issue that negatively affects students and the future of our university; OUSU needs to be there to represent us.”

Disadvantaged applicants less likely to achieve Firsts

0

Students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be awarded first class degrees than their peers, Oxford University data has revealed.

The statistics show that 22.9 per cent of undergraduates from underrepresented backgrounds received a First, compared to 30.3 per cent of their course mates.

The figures, obtained by Cherwell via Freedom of Information requests, compare degree classes for flagged and non-flagged students at the university.

Flags are given to undergraduates who meet a number of criteria including living in a deprived postcode, coming from a school which sends few pupils to Oxbridge or having lived in care.

The investigation also found that flagged students are more likely to withdraw from their studies or take longer to complete their course.

Only 76.2 per cent of flagged students had completed their degree by the time statistics were obtained by Cherwell, compared to 82.3 per cent of non-flagged students.

The findings, taken from data about undergraduates admitted between 2010 and 2013, mirror the “gender gap” which exists in degree results at the University. However, these statistics are the first to identify an association between degree outcome and socioeconomic background.

Eden Bailey, VP for Access and Academic Affairs told Cherwell, “Oxford has a serious problem with attainment gaps. A working group is already well in progress to tackle the gender and race attainment gaps, and at OUSU we’re glad the central University is acknowledging the present situation, which is unacceptable.

“It’s really important that ‘access’ work doesn’t just stop at admissions, but the University is doing everything they can be to ensure that all students have access to educational opportunities, and filling their full academic potential, regardless of their background, identity, or circumstance.

“I am very conscious that OUSU doesn’t have a liberation campaign relating to class or socioeconomic disadvantage, and would love to hear from students who would be interested in this.”

In response to the findings, a university spokesperson commented, “Oxford and its colleges offer highly personalised academic and financial support to students, and students with contextual flags at Oxford still have drop-out rates that are among the lowest in the sector, and do extremely well in achieving top degrees. The university will continue to work to ensure all students are well supported in their studies academically, personally and financially.”

The spokesperson added that Oxford was not alone in facing this type of problem and that it may be too early to draw conclusions given the sample size. They highlighted that the distribution of Firsts may also be affected by degree programme choices and other factors.

Previous studies have suggested that the comparatively lower success rate of Oxford students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds is not reflected nationally. A report by the student think-tank OxPolicy into the effect of socioeconomic background on degree outcome found that “at no Higher Education Institution did under-represented students perform worse than their peers.”

A perspective from Princeton: the stereotypes and surprises

0

Ah, American college. I imagine that you’ve got one of a few images in your head right now. A bunch of incredibly diverse students smiling fondly into the distance amongst a few orange leaves? A landfill of red cups in some beer-soaked frat house named Gamma-Xi-Pi? Boat shoes?

When I first took to the Princeton campus this September, my mind was full of these stereotypes (I should probably have visited beforehand). In reality, I don’t think life at Princeton stretches that far from the universities it modelled itself on: Oxford and Cambridge. They all have a bunch of incredibly talented people, are overwhelmingly liberal, and, quite frankly, work pretty hard.

However, at the risk of sounding a like a knock-off version of a Buzzfeed writer, here’s a few things that my non-Oxford educated self would see as a little different:

Diversity 

“An Englishman, a Jew, an African-American and an Asian walk into their Freshman Dorm”

Whilst my first experience on US soil was well fit to the format of some racially insensitive joke, I’ve come to realise that the diversity of my roommates isn’t something special here. In my first semester I’ve made friends from California, South Carolina, New York and everywhere in-between. Princeton admits their students to maximise the diversity of an incoming class (over half of my year are students of colour), and this racially and geographically selective intake, whilst a bit frustrating when applying, contributes to an amazingly diverse and interesting community once you’re here.

The difference in diversity extends beyond demographics though. The emphasis on athletics and other special talents is also clear to see. Whilst students at Oxford are no less talented, the diversity of non-academic talent that I’ve met since enrolling has been even more impressive than I first expected. Whether a high-tier University like Princeton should really be admitting athletes who care less about studying is up for debate, however personally I’ve found that at the very least the emphasis on sport fosters a greater element of campus spirit, in a similar way to the Oxbridge boat race.

Ultimately the different admissions criteria result in different campus bodies, and it’s the social and talent diversity which led me to choose to attend Princeton.

Nightlife 

And now onto the cliché question of choice: “Jonny, can you still go out in America ‘cause of the whole drinking age thing?”

You may be unsurprised to know that the legal drinking age doesn’t really impede social drinking at Princeton. Along with the ten or so large ‘frats’ (basically just mansions with basements, music and cheap beer on tap), alcohol is readily available around campus if you want it.

Despite this important saviour of the nightlife, the difference between it and Oxford’s counterpart cannot be emphasised enough. For all the chat I just gave on diversity, Princeton is pretty unashamedly elitist when it comes to its night scene. In order to get into most of the clubs on ‘The Street’ (a large road with all the ‘frat’ equivalents), you need a pass from an older member, something that leads to a fair bit of social stratification. Each club has its own reputation, and this self-fulfilling prophecy often means members of a certain group or team are all in the same club. A little insular I think. You’ll often find yourself going out with a group of friends at the beginning of the night, only to go your separate ways until you maybe see each other at one of the few open clubs at the end of the night. Odd.

Race vs. Class 

As their respective stereotypes go, Oxford’s and Princeton’s are as similar as you might find. Elitist would be the go-to buzzword. Interestingly, since I started studying here, it’s race rather than class which has been the key source of tension. This isn’t to say that there’s a raging race problem, because, at Princeton at least, there really isn’t. It’s just that I’ve noticed American students implicitly reference race in way British students don’t.

Whereas my Northern friends here will “take the piss” by calling something ‘Tory’, Americans will be far more likely to reference race, such as by telling someone to get their “white ass” over. It all sounds a bit trivial, probably because this is a very trivial observation I’ve chosen for my third and final, however the way in which these two sources of social tension are dealt with differently across the pond is something I’ve had on my mind.

And there we go. I guess upon reflection, the scale of these differences between Oxford and Princeton show just how similar the two are. Both are excellent universities, and both have the negative connotations that go with being an excellent university. If you ever do get the opportunity to undergo an exchange programme, I cannot recommend Princeton, or any other US college highly enough.

Visiting from Baltimore: a tale of two systems

0

Imagine: It’s two o’clock in the morning and I’m somewhere up in Summertown (I don’t know how far) and this fox wanders out from between the houses and stops in the middle of the street and just stares at me. And I’m standing in the middle of the street (because the sidewalk is creepy and full of shadows) and I’m staring, too. And I decide,

“Okay. That’s a sign if I’ve ever seen one. Time to head back.” So I turn around and walk back to College.

Coming home from Oxford was difficult for me. During my last week of Trinity, I started trying to condense a year’s worth of experiences into a few, neutral sentences in preparation for the barrage of obnoxiously simplistic “how was your time abroad?” questions. This article is not the 500-word version of those answers. With five months of reflection to work with, I have something real to say.

My first term at Oxford was incredible. Michaelmas was filled with bopping until we couldn’t bop any more, nighttime jaunts in Port Meadow, and the occasional (read: daily?) pub crawls that would inevitably end at Turf Tavern. But my experience abroad wasn’t all punting and daisy chains. There were times that it was very lonely. No one wants to tell you how difficult it is trying to build a home around something so temporary. No one likes to talk about the weeks of no sun or the breakdowns in Tesco when you realize you can’t make your favorite Christmas dish because the ingredients aren’t sold in England.

For me, the loneliest part was not being able to talk about missing home. How do you speak negatively about this incredible opportunity when everyone around you is saying they never want to leave? I’d dreamt about being at Oxford since I was five years old; even my family couldn’t understand why I was sitting in my room and not running around in the rain soaking up every drop of my Oxford experience. Oxford’s disturbing lack of mental health awareness and resources are topics best covered by a different student at a different time. All I’ll say on the matter is that silence can be a lot harder than speaking out.

It wasn’t as though my entire experience at Oxford was filtered through the lens of this grey cloud of depression. I met some of the greatest people while I was abroad. I made incredible friends. I was fortunate enough to be at St. Anne’s, the absolute best college, in my wholly objective opinion. But when my friend asked me to write about my time in Oxford this is the story I wanted to tell. Because I feel as though it isn’t one that gets told often enough. It’s whispered on drunken walks home from Wahoo or mentioned quickly in a dorm room over a fourth glass of Shy Pig: Oxford is great and wonderful and special; it is also isolating, lonely, and far from home.

Thanksgiving at Standing Rock

0

Across a lonely bridge in rural North Dakota spirals a length of gleaming razor wire. On one side, dozens of police officers stand in riot gear, accompanied by armored personnel carriers, towering lights, and water cannons. On the other end is a disorganized swath of unarmed protesters who, since last summer, have gathered to peacefully oppose the development of an oil pipeline that would connect North Dakota to the rest of the nation’s energy infrastructure.

On Sunday night, mounting tension erupted into chaos. A small provocation by protestors—an attempt to move a burnt-out vehicle which blocked the bridge—unleashed a massive response by police. Videos and photographs show water cannons, tear gas, and rubber bullets fired into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators.

The images are striking. Set against a jet-black night, clouds of tear gas and cascading water jets rise high above protesters waist-deep in wheat. Helmeted police in black uniforms hold bats or cans of pepper spray while large rifles hang between their hips. A tribal elder in traditional dress chants as he stares down police through the sights of their own weapons. Were it not for the Dakota blackness in the background, this could easily be Tahrir Square in Cairo or Taksim Square in Istanbul. Were it not for the color photography, the firework flashes of tear gas launchers, and the Operation Iraqi Freedom vehicles, it could be Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. Were it not for the wheat and the American Indians, it could be Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.

On Thursday, November 24, the overwhelming majority of Americans will gather with their families to celebrate Thanksgiving. For the unfamiliar, American Thanksgiving is one of the most important holidays in the United States, alongside Christmas and Independence Day. Its origins trace back to murky accounts of early 17th Century colonists sharing a harvest feast with indigenous Americans. But the “Thanksgiving Story” is rarely given much attention—the focus of the evening is gratitude and family. It’s the kind of celebration for which people open their doors to those who might otherwise be alone.

This Thursday promises to be a surreal experience at Standing Rock. A holiday which embraces warmth and friendship will intrude upon a snowy landscape dotted with canvas teepees and military vehicles still sporting their Middle Eastern camouflage colors. The scene on the bridge may resemble the Christmas Truce of 1914, an eerie testament to the military nature of this miniature ground offensive. Or it may fall quiet as police stay home for the day. Whatever happens, the last four-hundred years of “Indian policy” will be on everyone’s minds. The best-case scenario I can imagine is this: for just a moment the razor wire is moved aside, police take off their helmets and lay down their weapons, and both sides come together, at least to share an evening meal. And who knows? Perhaps, when the law enforcement officers get out of bed the next morning, going to work in the same way they did on Wednesday suddenly won’t feel so appetizing.

Wednesday Weltanschauung: Marijuana Legalisation

1

Marijuana legalisation has become such a popular position in the youthful generation that it has almost become a cliché. To oppose the legalisation of cannabis is to be an antediluvian madman who does not understand anything about modern society. And I do not wish to be antediluvian, or mad. I support the legalisation of marijuana—but not for the reasons most people favour it.

When asked why the favour legalisation, most people, especially young people in wealthy countries like Britain, favour marijuana legalisation, will say something along the lines that’s its harmless. If they’re being honest, they’ll even admit that the sugar in sweets or the alcohol in beer is more harmful than marijuana is. Others, who perhaps are more wonkish than average, might mention the effect the war on drugs has had on prisons, putting nonviolent potheads behind bars and costing the government hundreds of millions every year. A few people might even bring up the fact that in the US, the drug was has been used to criminalise blackness, with African-Americans being disproportionately arrested for the possession and use of marijuana.

All of these are very good reasons. Marijuana is as safe as coffee or tea, mass incarceration costs the governments heaps, and African American communities have been destroyed due to the war on drugs. But those are all relatively minor reasons to support the end of the war on drugs, and specifically the war on marijuana, compared to what this vanity project of the west has done to the third world.

It is easy to forget that the third world exists. In our day to day life, it is simply a source of guilt and vague sense of danger. It is where our cheap clothes and hated refugees come from. And to be frank, if it weren’t for my background, I would be as oblivious to the goings on of the third world as any other bourgeois Oxonian student. To be frank, I am ignorant of much of the goings in much of the third world. But I am familiar with the goings on of my country, which has been particularly affected by the war on drugs: and that country is Colombia.

If you have heard of Columbia, it is likely to be over the failed peace referendum in October, that time the secret service got caught fighting with hookers in Cartagena, that place where Shakira and Sofia Vergara comes from, or where your favourite TV show Narcos takes place. Remember that last one for a moment, and ask yourself, how could a country get to the point where one of the main things it’s known as is as a violent drug capital.

The causes of violence in Colombia have their roots well before the drug war, with the civil wars of the 19th century between liberals and conservatives, and with the rise and suppression of the nascent worker’s movement in the early 20th century. But there is no doubt that the violence in Colombia was exacerbated by the war on drugs.

When the war on drugs began, Colombia was not a peaceful country. It was a country with a long history of civil wars and military interventions in public life, with massive inequality and an almost hereditary political elite. But there were signs of improvement. The Radical Liberal Movement of President Lopez Michaelson showed there was a possibility of a third way between FARC style communism and the old quasi-feudal state of affairs that had governed Colombia since the 16th century. But that was before Nixon and the war on drugs.

The war on drugs gave a shot in the arm to a conflict that was on its way out. Injecting money into the bloodstream of Colombian life, the American decision to go all out on the war on drugs lead to the greatest period of violence that Colombia had ever seen. Local landlords began to hire paramilitary armies to kick peasants of their land, in order to ensure more land for their drug production. Drug cartels sprung up in cooperation with local landlords, until they began to violently overthrow the old landlords, and to violently battle one another. The military began to us extralegal tactics in order to meet targets set for how many tons of drugs were to be destroyed per year, dropping Agent Orange on the Colombian countryside. Some corrupt members of the armed forces cooperated with the cartels, helping them become professional armies. Peasants, displaced and bombed, became desperate. Those who tried to change the situation democratically were killed off by paramilitaries in what the Colombian government today recognises as a political genocide, while more radical peasants swelled the ranks of the FARC, for whom the drugs trade provided both members and money.

The drugs trade also led to the death of civil society. Courts, which in Colombia used to be respected institutions, had their judges murdered by the hundreds, with even the Supreme Court being bombed by a corrupt army. Politicians began to simply buy votes, while the state bureaucracy grew from being a weak but somewhat respected institution to becoming a nest of corruption so great that you needed a bribe to pay your taxes. The leaders of cartels like Pablo Escobar got elected to the House of Representatives, while Senators and cabinet members had personal hit squads to murder voters who dared oppose them.

Things in Colombia have gotten better than they were in the 1980s and 1990s, but the effects of the war of drugs are still there, impoverishing the country and perpetuating violence and corruption. And Colombia isn’t the only country where the people have become stuck in the crossfire between violent drug lords and corrupt governments. The story’s particulars change, but the broad strokes remain unchanged. Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua—and many other nations have suffered greatly due to the war on drugs.

People die for the west’s vanity projects. By all means, support legalisation of marijuana based on personal inconvenience, or government waste. But remember that they should always be secondary reasons, compared to the untold damage that the herb’s criminalisation has done to my nation, and so many other third world nations like it.

Review: Jealous of Herself

0

This 17th century Spanish drama from Tirso de Molina is brought to new life by NowNow Theatre in its first English language performance at the Keble O’Reilly. With effortless shifts from farcical plot twists and wry innuendo, to sobering reflections on the expectations of gender in society, Jealous of Herself is an enjoyable and thought-provoking production.

Although the twists and turns of the play’s plot create the opportunity for a cavalcade of humour, this production does not ignore that the source of these complications is a projection of male fantasy. While Finlay Stroud’s Melchor may embody the charm and perform the poetic compliments of a traditional romantic male lead, the darker edge to his blithe assumptions of beauty being the “primary concern” and his idealised preference of the imagined ‘Countess’ over the real woman behind the veil is acknowledged in the play’s more sombre moments, especially the incredible ending. The focal point of the comedy, his infatuation with a hand, becomes the cause of several characters’ anguish.

The music, composed by Alice Boyd, helps with the seamless nuances of tone as the interludes of performances by the ensemble (Boyd, Anushka Chakravarti, Cara Pacitti, Ell Potter and James Tibbles) are in turns enchanting, ominous and bittersweet. The choreography, by Emmy Everest-Phillips, is best displayed in a pas de deux between Chakravarti and Tibbles that emphasises both lyricism and aggression, as the two dancers portray power dynamics through energetic contemporary dance.

The rest of the main cast all have their moments to shine as well- all of the actors share an ease with the language and comedy that enchants and thoroughly involves the audience. Joe Peden carries a lot of the comedic dialogue (as well as literally carrying the male lead in one moment of slapstick) as the servant Ventura, who has a baser but more accurate view of the world than Melchor, and dryly comments on the play’s events to the audience directly. Peden appears an entirely modern presence in the play despite the occasionally archaic language, and his fast-paced chemistry with Stroud’s Melchor is outstanding. The heroine’s father (Tobias Sims) is appropriately and comically unaware of the goings-on, her brother (Rory Grant) entirely artless in his admiration for his neighbour’s sister and in any ill-will towards Melchor, and the neighbour Sebastian (Ali Porteous) believably infatuated with the heroine Magdalena. The maid Quinones (Emily Bell) develops from a staid disapproving figure next to Magdalena into a fun innuendo-spouting instigator of chaos herself, and Sebastian’s sister Angela (Kate Weir) is a superbly-acted figure of humour who becomes another Countess in the increasingly complex web of illusion.

There is a reason the play begins and ends with a song to Magdalena, however, and most of the poignancy of the play’s twists stems from Rebecca Hamilton’s heroine, who is by turns self-castigating, calculating, petulant, witty and tragic. Unlike Melchor, Magdalena is conscious of her own actions and the way she has “split herself into two”, both to trick and to fit into the desires of this male character; Hamilton’s performance is ultimately the most complex in the play because of that self-awareness. Unusually for the expectations of 17th century Spain, she is a fully-realised intelligent female character: imbuing Melchor’s reduction of her to a white hand with even more tragic irony.

Even without analysing the gender politics, the simple black-and-white stage design and costumes will evoke the binary conformity that the play addresses (the neon ‘Ladies’ and ‘Gents’ signs also convey this, but invite the audience to categorise themselves). The beautiful, haunting music of the final scene will stay with you long after the play ends- and the hilarious scenarios and dialogue guarantee that even if the play’s more intricate explorations do not resonate with you as they did with me, you will be thoroughly entertained. Open yourself up to the play’s subtleties, however, and you’ll experience far more than merely an excellent comedy.

Review: I, Daniel Blake

1

I am an enormous advocate of the redemptive and transformative power of cinema. If a friend feels trapped in a situation and needs to escape, I sit them in front of The Shawshank Redemption. If someone close to me is suffering after a difficult breakup, they’ll feel a lot better after watching Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. And I can’t think of a single Oxford student whose life wouldn’t be at least a little changed by watching I, Daniel Blake.

In amongst the cycle of essays and tutorials that take up most of our brains during term time, it can be really difficult to extend our thoughts to the wider world outside of this incredible, mad, wonderful bubble of privilege which we’re so lucky to call ourselves a part of. Like the best cinema, I, Daniel Blake offers an uncompromising and utterly absorbing view of the world, but one that’s much closer to home than many of us would dare to think.

The film follows Daniel Blake, a 59-year-old joiner-carpenter, who is declared medically unfit for work by his doctor after suffering a heart attack. However, according to a faceless medical healthcare professional, in the film’s disarmingly funny opening scene, he hasn’t scored quite enough “points” under the government’s system to qualify for the Disability benefit he so clearly needs. He is then forced to take Jobseeker’s Allowance, searching for jobs he’s unable to take due to his health, to satisfy a system that would rather reduce him to a number on a spreadsheet than view him as a human being.

From that brief synopsis, it’s clear the film’s currency is political ideas. The bedroom tax, food banks and the public’s opinions of those who accept benefits are just some of the key political ideas and plot points running through the film, but to focus on the film as a polemic against the government’s treatment of the poorest in society would, I think, miss the best of what the film has to offer.

This is a film about ordinary, good people coming up against faceless adversities, from the ridiculous bureaucracy seemingly designed “to make us give up and go home” to the faceless computers offering Daniel no compassion as he tries his hardest to do what they’re asking of him.

The storytelling is brimming with warmth and compassion toward its subjects, and celebrates the essential caring nature of human beings and small communities within systems that attempt to stamp that out. Anchored by two terrific lead performances by Dave Johns and Hayley Squires, the film is full of richly drawn characters and situations to pull out the humanity from the politics, to put faces on the issues at stake, and it is incredibly moving. One scene in particular at a food bank is absolutely devastating and reduced almost my entire screening’s audience to tears.

I can’t think of a single person who shouldn’t see I, Daniel Blake. The film is absolutely one of the year’s best, having already won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival earlier in the year. The main character may be fictional, but his struggles are not—and this film offers an emotional, devastatingly unflinching view of what that looks like. It’s a rallying cry against injustice in its many insidious forms, a howl of righteous fury on behalf of the voiceless, an ode to the tenacity of the human spirit. It made me laugh, and it reduced me to tears. I, Daniel Blake deserves to be seen by as many people as possible.

Beyond anger: an evening with Frank Carter

0

Somehow we have got to a point where modern rock music feels as if it is becoming ever more sanitised and anodyne. The idea of a rockstar who had a dissenting or powerful perspective to offer seems to be a concept from a distant memory. However, one unassuming dreary Sunday evening in Oxford would be enough to prove to anyone that punk rock was still as energetic as ever and that there are still musicians who want to scream their message until their lungs collapse.

When they first emerged in latter half of the noughties, Gallows were a band infamous for their violent and unpredictable live performances: fights were not uncommon and entire shows were performed in the crowd itself. This is something that has clearly not been lost in translation for lead singer Frank Carter in his new band Frank Carter and the Rattlesnakes. The night’s performance sees every feasible type of chaos unfold: Carter strutting along the bar of The Bullingdon, people swinging from the pipes on the ceiling, stage dives galore and guitarist Dean Richardson playing half a song whilst standing upright atop the crowd.

But there is something far more than just a brutal display of violent energy on display tonight. The atmosphere in the room was something between being caught in a prison riot and a cathartic spiritual experience. No moment illustrated this duality more than Carter’s open and raw discussion about loss before singing a stripped down, minimalist version of the song Beautiful Death. There is a palpable sense melancholy in the pin-drop silence that fills the room after he croons the last lyrics: “I want to stay this warm forever. I want to be this close to heaven.”

The theme of loss is one that looms large over the debut album Blossom. “It was all about loss.” he says to me. “And using all of those experiences for self betterment. The leaves have got to fall for the tree for it to get bigger. And this was about all the leaves that had fallen in that period of time.” Given his reputation for being somewhat cantankerous, such levels of raw emotion may seem unusual and out of place to those with only a cursory knowledge of his past – seeing only the pictures of him bloodied and bleeding while playing with Gallows. And this is a misconception that he addresses: “I’m not just aggression, as much as people want me to be. I’m much more complicated and individual than that.”

The upcoming album Modern Ruin is a testament to this: “This album shows all the different layers and depth to me as an artist. It is about how we interact with everyone around us and how you can take two elements and they are able to make something beautiful and at other times they can ruin each other and be corrosive.”

Clearly the power of music as an art form to affect change in people’s lives is something central to every artist. However, when talking about the recent election of Donald Trump in America, Carter is less certain. Given the tradition of punk rock – arising from the oppressive authoritarianism of the 1980s – I ask whether he believes we will see a renaissance in punk rock or even more generally in music with a broad political commentary.

“We live in the most narcissistic age there has ever been.” he says “We’ve kind of been dumbed down and we kind of care less about the things that are important in life and theres a small pocket of people that give a shit and they’re actively trying to push it. And those are the people that will make those records.”

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that punk will be the chosen medium of the resistance.

“You gotta remember with that whole thing – what punk rock came from – I think you take punk and you move it out and what has now replaced punk rock is grime. Same kids. Same disillusioned youth with a hatred for authority. So what we’ve had is a just a shift in the urban downtrodden youth and what they’re embracing now is grime.”

For Carter both are the sound of a furious and intense dissidence and disaffection. “Punk is grime now. Grime is punk. I want people to understand that, they’re completely different and exactly the same.”

It is this intense and furious that Carter closes the night with, exclaiming from stage before diving into the aptly named I Hate You: “this is a song for that one person that you absolutely cannot stand. Because just know that if you feel that way about someone, then someone else probably feels that way about you too.”

The evening captures the passionate intensity and emotion that Carter spoke of. Though it is possibly one of the most chaotic performances that you may ever see, it is a perfect encapsulation of the variety of anger that fills the room. The evening is an acknowledgement that every single person’s expressions of anger are unique to them: whether they be feelings of dislocation or a sense loss. And yet Carter has managed to uniquely harness this anger and this melancholy and distill into 90 minutes of pure punk rock perfection.

Remembering Laughing Lennie

0

The day before I left home to come to Oxford I found a hidden stash of my parents’ records in a cupboard in the sitting room. In this, amongst the Kate Bush and the New Order was a “The Best of Leonard Cohen” album. One might recognise the cover – it’s a sepia picture of him looking in a circular mirror in Milan, and as he himself described it “I hardly ever look this good, or bad, depending on your politics”. I had known, and liked, Leonard Cohen before spotting this amongst the other vinyl. Just this summer I had been in Montreal, and there I had purchased his first ever novel, ‘The Favourite Game’. We called him ‘Laughing Lennie’ in my family, in homage to the bitter, serious humour that runs consistently through everything he does. This record, however, started something new. When I asked my dad if I could take it with me here, he was overjoyed. As it turns out, it was one of the records my mother brought with her when she first came to Oxford, 38 years ago almost to the day. This was, of course, a cliché, but a significant one. I packed in the back of the car the next morning, and a love affair began.

That record has spun around my record player more times than I can count since being here. Everyone who has come into my room has at some point been subjected to Laughing Lennie. It’s helped me build relationships (the Oriel Chaplain also loves Leonard Cohen), it’s helped me make people laugh (apparently my insistence to call him sexy despite a 64 year age difference is comical), and it has helped me deal with the sadness and insecurity that I’ve felt since being in Oxford. The thing about Leonard Cohen, is that he is (or now was) sincere. He was a man, a Jew from Montreal, who loved music and loved poetry and loved women. He wrote songs about himself, songs that make sense to those that listen to them but weren’t written to be universal. He never thought too highly of himself, but he was never self deprecating either. He was just a man, a beautiful, talented man, who had things to feel and stories to tell. I always admire poets. People who can write what’s inside my head in a way I could never do. Leonard Cohen was the epitome of that – he took the soul, the human condition, and put it to music. For that, I (and many others) will be eternally grateful.

This year we have lost too many heroes. It hurts my heart to think of the minds and the intellects that were here twelve months ago and now are no longer. These deaths can, as a silver lining, reignite our love and passion in those that we lost. So, if you haven’t already, go and listen to Leonard Cohen. Listen to ‘So Long Marianne’ and dance and sing with a friend. Listen to ‘Famous Blue Raincoat’ and share in a vulnerability that not many other grown men have been willing to expose. Listen to ‘I’m Your Man’ and cringe at the creepy sexiness of it all (and try to imagine your parents doing their first dance to it, as my god-sister has to). Listen to ‘You Want it Darker’ and giggle at the cheesy backing singers who seemed to never be more than a verse away from his deep and moving voice. I hope that this death can bring new ears to my hero. I hope that someone who is struggling to find their feet, albeit in Oxford or in life, can listen to a man who loved and who felt and feel that they are not, and will never be alone. Laughing Lennie, you will be missed.