Friday 27th June 2025
Blog Page 122

Oxford University Short Film Festival 2024 – Day 5

Betsy McGrath
-
0
Oxford University Short Film Festival 2024 – Day 5

CW: references to war, death, racism, drink spiking, homophobia

The Keble O’Reilly was yet again packed for the last night of what has, by all accounts, been a fantastically successful run for the Oxford University Short Film Festival (OUSFF). Showing 25 films in total, this year was a first for OUSFF in opening their submissions to student filmmakers beyond Oxford. The result was an eclectic and exciting range of films made by some truly talented student filmmakers and recent alumni. 

Nighty Night, Dear 

The first film of the evening was Nighty Night, Dear, an endearingly nostalgic tale about a mischievous magician, Koko (Mollie Milne), sleep deprived from the nightly recollection of embarrassing moments. Nighty Night, Dear playfully literalises these memories as film negatives produced by a magical contraption, which Koko then categorises in archives including the highly relatable ‘being an idiot’. Jealous of young boy Josh’s anxiety-free sleep, Koko decides to send Josh memories of his own mistakes. The result is a cheekily poignant coming-of-age narrative thanks to lively performances from Koko and Josh. The film’s cinematography was particularly impressive: bathed in a warm, ‘vintagey’ palette reminiscent of Kodak Gold, Nighty Night, Dear evoked the twilight mellowness of childhood found in many a Roald Dahl or Dr. Seuss story. This was further aided by the narrator’s gentle voiceover and close-up shots, used adroitly to convey Koko and Josh’s dream-like states. The film also made great use of the contrast between live action and animation, creating Koko’s house and the evening sky out of cardboard stop-motion. The blurring of fantasy with reality gave the film a tactile, magic realist quality in its charming exploration of innocence and self-awareness. 

Ghost Insurance 

Another film which comically exploited our insecurities was Ghost Insurance, which featured a well-acted performance from salesman Paul. Paul, however, is not your average salesman: he sells “ghost insurance”, which claims to cover for any unexplained happenings around the home including smashed vases and stray socks. The dialogue between Paul’s prospective clients – a gullible father and his cynical daughter – was hilariously effective, drawing laughs from the audience as Paul gestured to the invisible presence of “Errol”, his phantom coworker. Within its sharply economical form, the film managed to deliver several punchlines in quick succession, such as the telling jingle attached to Paul’s business card: ‘my dead wife keeps accusing me of murder!’. Ghost Insurance effortlessly parodied the aesthetic of insurance adverts, cleverly playing with the sinister capacity for such companies to profit off our superstitions through a delightful twist at the end. 

Punchbowl 

Punchbowl, directed by Mia Sorenti, also managed to deftly balance humour with more sinister themes. The film follows two university students, confident Nina and hesitant Liv, as they attempt to graft their way onto the women’s hockey team through Nina’s ‘lesbian power game’. Quite the opposite occurs as Nina and Liv find themselves plunged into the aggressively white, heterosexual world of Oxford’s secret societies. The ‘Tuesday Club’ comprises a group of pompous, neo-Nazi Etonian alumni unapologetically advocating for a ‘colonial comeback’, and Nina suspects one of its members of spiking drinks after finding some dubious substances. The aftermath, however, is startlingly funny, offering an inventive take on what can sometimes be a rather hackneyed portrayal of Oxford’s elitism, following in the footsteps of The Riot Club. Whilst the film suffered at times from muffled audio from Nina and oversaturation, the script worked effectively alongside its short format. Darkly funny, Punchbowl perceptively lingers at the gothic borderland, reminding us that despite Nina and Liv’s lucky escape, Oxford’s sinister underbelly maintains the potential for more predatory events to occur. 

The Pacifist

The second film of the evening set in Oxford, The Pacifist transports us back to a true story from 1940 straight from University College’s archives. The film follows 19 year old student John Fulljames, a conscientious objector whose mental health rapidly declines as he is called for conscription, leading him to shoot two students and be sentenced to Broadmoor for schizophrenia. The period set’s exquisite detail and cinematography were excellent, presenting an unusually sparse Oxford in a beautiful subtlety of light which contrasted with the intensity of the students’ debates. The Pacifist sensitively reveals the oft-neglected history of WWII’s psychological impact as the conflicts between John and his peers bleed into questions of sexuality and masculinity. There is a palpable homoerotic subtext to John’s sensuous appreciation of Univ’s Shelley statue, who was famously expelled from Oxford for refusing to disavow his atheist convictions. However, the film’s singular female character disappointingly appeared only as an ephemeral, seductive presence to soothe John’s psychological distress. As the longest film of the night, The Pacifist also suffered from some pacing issues, but its lengthy monologues contained excellent lines such as John’s protestation: ‘I won’t have my rotting body fertilise France’s soil’. 

A Ticket to Hell 

Also questioning the meaning of war was A Ticket to Hell, a film that brought the nihilism of armed conflict to its literal extreme with an emotive score. A soldier is not told where he is, or who he is fighting, but is instructed to follow his officer’s orders with little justification. Three spectral presences visit the soldiers to caution against perpetuating a cycle of endless violence which they too participated in, long ago in a forgotten past. At times, the film risks slipping into more cliched representations of war in its montages of violence against childhood innocence. However, the overlaying of the soldier’s diary entries invites more compelling questions about memory, bringing the universality of war in tension with the personal. The act of inscription makes room for subjective, even spiritual experience by problematising the capacity to write and remember war objectively, despite the officer’s attempts to anonymise the conflict and reduce it to its most banal parts. 

I tend to approach student productions with a degree of scepticism, but the festival’s final night gave us some truly impressive films which balanced serious topics with quick-wittedness and skillful cinematography. The evening’s success was also thanks to the hard work of the OUSFF team, which has clearly paid off.

The award for Oustanding Film was given to Je Veux Danser. Beijing Pigons won the People’s Choice Award.

Louis Wilson to succeed Hannah Edwards as Oxford Union President

Cherwell News
-
0
Louis Wilson to succeed Hannah Edwards as Oxford Union President

Oxford Union’s Appellate Board declared that the Office of President-Elect is vacant until the end of Hilary Term, after which it will be offered to the incoming Librarian for Trinity 2024, Louis Wilson. Neither of the two candidates who ran for president-elect last term, Leo Buckley or Julia Maranhao-Wong, will be taking up the role.

Last term, Buckley was narrowly elected President in a hotly contested election against Maranhao-Wong. Shortly after the end of last term, two charges of electoral malpractice against him were then brought before a Union tribunal, which cleared him of one charge but found him guilty of harassment under Rule 33(a)(i)(28). Buckley was also suspended from the Union until 10th week of Trinity Term 2024. 

According to a preliminary ex camera notice, the Appellate Board that sat yesterday unanimously decided to uphold Buckley’s conviction, disqualification, and suspension. The board also declared the office of President-Elect vacant, despite stating that “[T]his determination does not result from any assessment of the character or qualifications of any officer or candidate for office; instead, it reflects the considered judgment of the Appellate Board as to the proper path forward after a disqualification of this kind, as we will discuss in more detail in our report.”

The Appellate Board also stated that while they had not found the appeal attempt to be unreasonable, they did not disqualify any Election Tribunal panelists from sitting on future panels. It further explained: “The Appellate Board does, however, intend to make several important recommendations that we urge the Society to address with appropriate haste and care. We will detail these in our report.”

As a result of this decision, the office of President-Elect will remain vacant until the end of Hilary Term under Rule 38(b)(vi), after which it will be offered to the incoming Librarian for Trinity 2024 under Rule 12(c)(ii). 

The rule of succession will also mean that the current Treasurer-Elect, Izzy Horrocks-Taylor, will become the Librarian-Elect. Meanwhile, the candidate elected Secretary and candidate elected for member of standing committee with the most votes in this term’s elections will become the Treasurer-Elect and Secretary-Elect respectively. 

The Appellate Board’s final report is expected to be published after nominations open for the Hilary 2024 Elections. The notice states that the report will be the “definitive statement of the Appellate Board’s decisions as well as its reasons for making them.”

Halfway Hall, *sighs with relief*

Libby Morrell
-
0
Halfway Hall, *sighs with relief*

I didn’t always dream of studying at Oxford. My decision to apply was made in a split second, panicked, mere days before the Oxbridge deadline. Of course I was aware that people all around the world had been planning to apply since primary school, or even earlier, so I thought my chance of getting in was a limited one. Yet here I am, in my second year studying English Literature and Language at one of the greatest institutions on the planet. 

I suppose I cannot complain about my choice. However, with the very little and clearly insufficient research I did on my course, my college, and the university itself, it is hardly surprising that I haven’t found myself in the most suitable environment for me. Oxford can be an exceptionally challenging place, with its constant workload and resulting stress, and somehow I managed to make it even more difficult for myself.

Michaelmas Term of my first year was abominable. I was heartbroken, overwhelmed, and plagued by imposter syndrome – something that I never thought would affect me so dramatically. Then came Hilary, in which the sole constant was drinking; it was what can only be described as a manic, messy two months. I barely remember it, but everything I do remember was atrocious. With the sun and blazing temperatures, Trinity Term brought some resolution to a profusely stressful academic year. Despite the upcoming exams, everything seemed to calm down. I successfully completed my Prelims without a hitch. 

Then the relentless cycle began again. Michaelmas of second year was dire. I threw myself into everything that Oxford had to offer: rowing, editing, writing, being on the JCR committee, tutoring, and more. There is an expectation at Oxford to always remain busy, no matter how much energy it drains from you. For some, it can feel like a toxic environment, whilst others thrive with the hustle and bustle of it all. At the end of 6th week, I reached my breaking point and escaped Oxford for the week. That week away was a saving grace for me and, looking back, I have never felt prouder for allowing myself a short but necessary break. I returned for a week before the Christmas vacation saved me from my torment. 

Now, we’re back in Hilary term. There has been improvement since the last; I have not been tempted to drink through bottles of spirits on a daily basis, for which my liver feels much gratitude. But each term is still a struggle, which is why the advent of Halfway Hall is so comforting to me. 

Reaching Halfway Hall is a huge achievement for me, and I honestly don’t believe that I am alone in this mindset. With such high expectations as an incoming fresher, it can be devastating to realise that the ‘dream’ is actually far from paradisiacal. Oxford is exhausting – there can be no doubt about that – and for some, it is a battle from start to end. Halfway Hall is somewhat of a beacon of hope. Its very arrival offers a small sense of relief that this degree will end. I have been counting down the terms and the idea of surpassing the halfway point brings me so much joy. Although the dressing up, the awards, and the food will all be lovely, I’m sure, they really don’t matter to me that much. It’s all about the principle: not long left to go. 

I’m sure some people do genuinely enjoy their time here, but I know there is a vast amount of students who do not. It is those who await Halfway Hall so eagerly, not for a night of celebration, but as a sign of accomplishment. We have made it halfway: there is less to come than what has been – and that is a truly satisfying thought.

Why don’t we talk about Oxford’s land?

Patrick Maxwell
-
0
Why don’t we talk about Oxford’s land?

Property management isn’t the most scintillating topic for Oxford students to concern themselves with. But in many ways it is the basis of our student experience – the reason why we walk out onto that beautiful quad, stroll into a lavishly bedecked dining hall or look up at some finely restored stained glass on the edge of a chapel. Colleges talk a fair amount – and students hear a good deal – about endowments and fundraising, development and outreach. But our Colleges are old, ancient even, and so are their sources of revenue. Every time they need a new building – the Cohen Quad at Exeter, the Gradel Quad at New College – a fork out from a big philanthropist comes in handy. But the financial foundations of our Colleges, and therefore of our experiences in each one, are based on the land they hold, and often have held for centuries. 

Education is expensive. Reading books and answering problem sheets does not make you hard cash. The Oxford collegiate structure is able to survive financially largely because it is old, and because the assets that they hold and the property that they have owned for centuries, has grown in value astronomically. A visit to the New College’s Archives in the fourteenth-century Muniment Tower reveals the myriad boxes which hold the information of every estate owned by the College since 1379, spanning acres in the city of Oxford and across the country. The diligence with which the founders documented every interaction with their tenants highlights how much these new institutions depended on their assets for the money to support a community: money which we take easily for granted in the league table of endowments which sometimes make the headlines. But these figures do make a difference: student life is cheaper if you are at St John’s than if you are at, say, Regent’s Park. One was founded in Oxford in 1555, the other in 1927. Those dates matter. 

Some stats will help us broaden the picture. Oxford’s richest College is St John’s, with an endowment of over £700 million and assets reaching nearly £800. Much of this is based on the handy fact that the College has owned, almost since its foundation, a swathe of property in North Oxford which now sells for millions. It has also made some pretty smart money moves since the 1960s. All Souls follows with an endowment of over £500 million, with Merton and Christ Church in close succession. New College does fairly well out of its Wykhemist foundation, while other disproportionately endowed Colleges include Queen’s, Jesus and Nuffield. Much of the money directed towards property by colleges goes to firms such as Bidwells, which acts for forty-seven Oxbridge colleges in their endowments and building projects. 

These funds are essentially in line with the property owned by these colleges: All Souls owns more than three-hundred properties in Willesden in North London, from ordinary flats to pizza places on high streets; York Place Mansions on Baker Street is one of their most lucrative assets. More land does equal more cash, and, somewhere down the line, a cheaper life for its students. In Oxford itself, some of the most successful venues are owned by colleges; the Turf Tavern has been owned by Merton since 1946, and Wadham has been enjoying the revenue Kings Arms and the Holywell Music Rooms, where prices for drinks and music hire have increased drastically over the past few years. Magdalen has substantially increased its funds through selling its share of the Oxford Science Park to a Singaporean sovereign wealth fund. 

Why does this matter? All collegiate institutions have to get their money from somewhere, and investment funds and cash endowments have provided much more revenue for colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge over the last few decades. By the standards of Cambridge – where Trinity College sports its £2 billion endowment – the majority of Oxford colleges do not present astronomical numbers. 

Yet the colleges’ property does make a difference not only to our experience of university life in Oxford, but to the impact that Oxford has on the rest of the country. Although they often run through landlord firms, colleges such as All Souls have stake in numerous communities around the country; that in Willesden for example, is a community and an investment of a kind that would never have figured in the imagination of the college’s founders. Colleges have a stake in these changing communities – surely something we should speak more about in any discussion of Oxford’s wider impact. Property holdings are a form of outreach embedded in the life of the college. 

What’s more, students by and large are unaware of the stakes that their colleges have in their communities, and the sources of wealth that allow for Oxford colleges to remain independent. An increase in the costs of living – in costs for accommodation, food and maintenance – since 2020 should have put these issues front and centre. We don’t have to be overtly cynical about the nature of College wealth – investing in long-term property projects and in lucrative endowments is what provides the money for the world’s best university, though debate will always continue as to what the best use of that money looks like. A greater awareness of the sources of these funds – and the nationwide reach of our colleges – can work both ways. Seeing where the money we put into our colleges has gone should be a natural curiosity if we are to scrutinise how such funds are best spent, and to recognise that the money we pay goes towards more than providing the daily bread of university life. 

Students should scrutinise this more not only to make sure that the college is not missing the first priorities of provision for teaching and learning and student support: this means looking more closely at what the college owns and what it has done and could do with these assets. It means looking more closely at the traditions and the priorities of our colleges – for better and for worse. It’s not the most enticing topic, for sure. But property matters for us, and for many more outside of these city walls who don’t seem to play a part in the Oxford experience. 

Oxford Union does not know what the Labour Party stands for

Selina Chen
-
0
Oxford Union does not know what the Labour Party stands for

On Saturday night, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This House does not know what the Labour Party stands for.” The final count had 188 members voting for the motion and 70 members voting against. 

The star speaker in the proposition was Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP for North East Somerset who was Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He previously read history at Trinity College, Oxford. 

When introducing Rees-Mogg, Anita Okunde of University College remarked on his failed bid for Union presidency back when he was a member, which elicited a great deal of laughter in the chamber. She also introduced proposition speakers Theo Adler-Williams from Worcester College and Robert Griffiths, a Welsh communist activist who has been General Secretary of the British Communist Party since 1998 – pointing out his party’s lack of a single electoral seat.

Adler-Williams introduced Ali Khosravi, who was Co-Chair of the Oxford University Labour Club last year, and Joe Moore, a Political Advisor to various Labour MPs. Regarding the lack of Labour MPs on the opposition bench, Adler-Williams said that the Union contacted over 50 Labour MPs but realised that the party would not allow any to attend.

Speaking first in proposition, Adler-Williams began with a brief history of Labour and their stances leading up to Keir Starmer’s leadership, when Labour no longer had a clear policy “because they purposefully choose to speak in so many tongues” in order to have a “bomb-proof” campaign. “If you write a manifesto that can’t be criticised by the Tories,” he said, “then you’ve just written a Tory manifesto.”

Okunde, speaking in opposition, opened with a classic reference: “Comrades, there’s a spectre haunting not only Europe, but us. That spectre is 14 years of Conservative Party ruling going on.” She argued that “Labour stands for what it has always stood for: for the many and not the few,” attributing policy changes to Labour adapting to the current system where the working class has different needs. Okunde advocated for Labour because of its vision for housing, working class representation, a genuine living wage, and more, concluding that she believed in “Labour’s vision and principles in shaping [her] journey and that of countless others.”

Griffiths, in proposition, admitted that he could be put on either side of the debate, and indeed his final message advocated a third path: rather than voting for either side, he called on members to “Sit still! Occupy the Chamber!” to which the floor responded with laughter. He called Labour’s policy U-turns “spectacular somersault,” citing failures to make mail, railways, and energy public. To Griffiths, the reversal “doesn’t make any sense unless you want to cuddle up to big business,” alleging Labour to be “the party of the 10%, the party of business” in a fiery speech.

Khosravi, speaking in opposition, opened by addressing Griffiths’s point that Labour stands for big business, turning this around to argue that “[Labour] does stand for something, just something [Griffiths] doesn’t agree with,” receiving a round of applause from the chamber. He then argued that people “must not confuse the letter of the manifesto with what the party stands for, philosophically or on principle.” The Conservative contradiction, Khosravi said, is believing “that Labour stands for nothing yet Labour is such a dangerous threat that must be stopped – make up your mind.”

Closing the case for proposition, Rees-Mogg compared Labour’s 26 U-Turns to the car chase U-turns in “James Bond films [the Union is] such an aficionado of,” referencing the society’s “Casino Royale” theme ball that took place the day before. Moving on from serious policy U-turns, Rees-Mogg ridiculed Labour’s “most silly” case of dishonesty when Starmer initially claimed to be great friends with Jeremy Corbyn but later claimed they were never friends.

Rees-Mogg observed that Labour is increasingly centrist, stating that “as Labour becomes more and more Tory, I feel the country becomes safer and safer!” to a round of applause. As such, he believed that Labour is prioritising electoral success over policy implementation, asking the Union to consider the goal of going into politics despite its sacrifices: “you achieve what you believe in – not winning individual elections but what is best for country.”

Lastly, Moore closed the case for the opposition by refuting the 26 U-turns argument: “The policy [Labour] remains committed to is still a policy, simply with “changes in degree or magnitude.” He cited employment rights and energy among the evidence for an economic plan with “a more activist, more involved state – a government shaping, not being shaped by, the market.”

Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before: Week 3

Rufus Jones
-
0
Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before: Week 3

Each week, Rufus brings you a poem along with his thoughts on it. This week, he looks at The Winter Palace, by Phillip Larkin.

The Winter Palace, Philip Larkin

Most people know more as they get older:

I give all that the cold shoulder.

I spent my second quarter-century

Losing what I had learnt at university.

And refusing to take in what had happened since.

Now I know none of the names in the public prints,

And am starting to give offence by forgetting faces

And swearing I’ve never been in certain places.

It will be worth it, if in the end I manage

To blank out whatever it is that is doing the damage.

Then there will be nothing I know.

My mind will fold into itself, like fields, like snow.

I’m reminded of an angry note I found in the margin of my library’s The Whitsun Weddings, a Larkin collection. It said nine out of ten of his poems were dull but there’d be the one that would change everything. A line that’d floor you. While I contest the jab about dullness, they were spot-on about the power of Larkin’s lines. This week’s poem illustrates my point.

It feels like there’s less and less to look forward to about getting older, both as an individual and as one in a generation that’s spoilt for choice of imminent, world-ending catastrophes. Larkin, the master of the melancholy, reassures us we aren’t alone in our pessimism: previous generations have felt equally as miserable about aging. In fact, the ignorance, forgetfulness and isolation of old age should be welcomed, not shaken off! It might rob life of its joys but it takes the fears away with it too.

There’s comfort to be found in Larkin’s bleak but candid acceptance of aging. It’s cold comfort, sure, but there’s something nice about company, especially if it’s in the face of something scary. Though company can’t dissipate our fears, it can, as Larkin’s poem does, give us the courage to face them.

Oxford most popular UK university on Wikipedia

Samuel Williams
-
0
Oxford most popular UK university on Wikipedia

Oxford University has the most visited UK university Wikipedia page of 2023. It was viewed more than 1.3 million times last year, with an average of nearly four thousand people googling the University every day. The difference of cumulative views between Oxford and Cambridge was more than three hundred thousand, setting Oxford clearly ahead of Cambridge. 

The released data also show how colleges stack up against one another in popularity. Unsurprisingly, Magdalen College, Oxford’s richest college according to assets, is the most visited on Wikipedia, with 177,436 views in 2023. It was closely followed by Balliol College with 169,214 views. This may be due to major news events of 2023 featuring Balliol College alumni such as Boris Johnson and Ghislaine Maxwell. 

After Balliol College, All Souls College is the third most popular Wikipedia page, followed by University College, New College, and Lincoln College—all colleges known for their centuries-old buildings with architectural styles ranging from English Gothic to Neoclassical. With the exception of Lady Margaret Hall, Worcester College, and Keble College, the top ten most viewed Oxford Colleges were all founded before 1500. 

It is not just on Wikipedia that Oxford garners more attention than Cambridge. Worldwide, Oxford is also more frequently googled than Cambridge. However, within England and China, neither Oxford nor Cambridge is the most googled university –that title belongs to UCL. 

Countries with the highest rates of googling for Oxford University are the Philippines, Iran, and Kazakhstan. Comparatively, Cambridge is far more popular than Oxford in Peru, Colombia, and Mexico. 

Oxford’s most famous colleges are also more popular in specific countries. Of the top five colleges, Magdalen College is most beloved in Hong Kong and Poland, Balliol College in Norway and Singapore, New College in Hungary and Japan, All Souls College in Malaysia and the Philippines, and University College in Brazil and the USA.

The multiple histories of flight BA149

Grace Dowling
-
0
The multiple histories of flight BA149

Former passengers and crew of flight BA149 have launched a legal case against His Majesty’s Government and British Airways. They content that the scheduled refuelling of a civilian aircraft in military-occupied Kuwait, an invasion that became the First Gulf War, was a means for the government to deliver intelligence into the country at the cost of the safety of the crew and passengers. Those aboard the plane and the British Airways employees already in the country were nearly all taken hostage by the Iraqi army and held as ‘human shields’ for up to five months. 

‘The Gulf War did not take place’, declared the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard. His controversial essay did not aim to efface the violent reality of the American led coalition against Iraq, but targeted the simulacrum of mass media coverage: the media, he claimed, conjures a reality of its own rather than reflecting what it claims to witness. However, the announcement of the legal case proposes that reality cannot be reduced to a binary of the truth and the media fiction that obscures it. Instead, the case demonstrates that re-assembling reality is an arduous and time bound process of discovery where we cannot expect to arrive at a ‘whole truth’, but must continually make space in narratives we think we know, altering history detail by detail. Thirty years after the First Gulf War, amidst geopolitical turmoil, this court case brings into sharp focus how partial a reality distorted by the media is. But the legal action pursued by the hostages suggests that it wasn’t just the portrayal of the war through screens that distorted the truth. The reality documented in the archives is not neutral either.

The hostages’ testaments trouble British Airways’ defence. Upon the announcement of the case, the company issued a statement declaring that while their “hearts go out” to the victims, the Government records confirm that the company was “not warned of an Iraqi invasion”. In 2021, the then Foreign Secretary Liz Truss stated that the British Embassy in Kuwait reported to British Airways that “while flights on 1 August should be safe, subsequent flights were inadvisable”. The BA149 departed from London at 18:04 GMT on the 1st, after a two hour delay due to “technical problems”. At “00:00 GMT on 2 August 1990”, while the flight was airborne, the British Ambassador in Kuwait reported the Iraqi invasion to the Foreign and Commonwealth office. This second call made by the ambassador in Kuwait had not been revealed until 2021, protected by the Public Records Act.

In the few syllables of “technical problems” lies the first gap that the victims’ stories begin to fill-in. If time was of the essence to land safely in Kuwait, then the two-hour delay seems risky. Those on the plane have since reported that a group of men boarded the flight during this delay. As soon as they did, ‘cabin crew doors to automatic’ chimed over the intercom and the plane began preparations to take off. The government’s statement shows that British Airways were warned that the 1st of August was their safe window. What the company did not receive was an announcement of the invasion. However, Matthew Jury from McCue Jury & Partners- the firm defending the hostages- revealed that on the evening of the 1st of August, the family of the British Airways manager in Kuwait left the country. By insinuating that the company were aware of an impending danger and able to take precautions, these pockets of information attest to the paradox of how something that is based in official records can produce counter-narratives that twist and writhe, distorting a clear reconstruction of events. 

The stories of the BA149 hostages begin to assemble a more three-dimensional image of the War in contrast to the media pageantry and broadcast footage. Instead of Hussein’s orchestrated and televised encounters with the hostages and their families, the victims describe how they were subjected to starvation, deplorable living conditions, mock executions, beatings and rape. On their return, crew members felt forced to leave their jobs prematurely because of Post-Traumatic Stress. One of the passengers was only twelve when taken hostage and describes a life ‘robbed’ and ‘overshadowed’ by the experience. But their testaments fracture our understanding of the past and deliver prismatic perspectives upon history. Suddenly, the path to the truth proliferates with byways. Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality blames this vertiginousness on media distortions. But reality is not just mediated by the media: the hostages intimate that there were a series of cover-ups and deniable operations that occurred behind our screens.

At the crux of a legal case lies responsibility, yet how do we assign culpability when the truth exists separately to what has been documented? Responsibility for the “mistreatment of [the] passengers and crew”, Truss claims, “lies entirely with the Government of Iraq at the time”. While mistreatment feels like a cruelly saccharine word compared to what the hostages were subjected to, Truss acknowledges that this event has been festering since 1990 and the scars it has grown during that time only make it harder to see how the wound was inflicted. By locating the obfuscation of truth solely with the media, the veil of hyperreality itself obscures the granular interactions that go into distorting reality, which happen in phone calls, protected documents and official statements. 

For the victims, this war was not a discreet or self-contained event. The livelihoods of those involved grow into the shape that the conflict has cast for them. Instead of what Baudrillard calls the ‘non-event of this war’, the legal case presents us with the continual event of war. As more information crawls to the surface, the victims continually adjust their concept of the reality that the world and the justice system will acknowledge as real, against the haunting persistence of their all too real experiences. Now, as tens of thousands of civilians are embroiled in vicious conflicts, we should consider what might happen to their stories in thirty years’ time. If nothing else, the case reminds us of the importance of dignifying individual voices.

Image Credit: Pedro Aragão/CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

SU candidates express concern over alleged secret slate

Cem Kozanoglu
-
0
SU candidates express concern over alleged secret slate

Cherwell has investigated allegations that a secret slate coordinated endorsements across various SU campaigns – a tactic that is strictly forbidden by the SU. This follows the SU Campaign Class Act having to withdraw its endorsements due to “a degree of unfairness” in the endorsement process and the President-Elect, Addi Haran, stating that she was asked by the newly elected VP for Welfare, Alfie Davis, to join a slate last October. Multiple presidential candidates have since expressed their disappointment with the election to Cherwell. After publication Alfie contacted Cherwell denying any claims of a slate. 

Campaigning for the SU elections began on 31 January and ended yesterday, on 8 February, after four days of voting. During the electoral process, seven SU campaigns released official endorsements, which all included people from a group of six candidates. The only exception was former presidential candidate Shermar Pryce, who was endorsed by CRAE (Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality). 

Three out of the six candidates endorsed by multiple campaigns were elected Sabbatical officers: Eleanor Miller for VP UG Education and Access, Joel Aston for VP Liberation and Equality, and Alfie Davis for VP Welfare. The other two candidates – Elliot (Riz) Possnett for SU President and Luca Di Bona for VP Activities and Communities – lost their Sabbatical races but were elected NUS delegates. Harry McWilliam was elected student trustee. 

Less than five hours before the voting closed, SU Campaign Class Act had to rescind its endorsements due to “a degree of unfairness” in the endorsement process and a breach of the election regulations. The endorsements were conveyed in an email sent on Monday, 5 January and told members: “We strongly encourage you to vote … for the following candidates as your first preferences,” followed by a list of the six people mentioned above. 

Regarding the endorsements, Davis said that “If any other candidates had indeed bothered to turn up to any of the open, democratic meetings held by any of the campaigns they could have, but they instead chose not to – that’s why they weren’t endorsed. It is not the fault of any candidates who were endorsed by a campaign that other candidates apparently didn’t care enough about the experiences of said groups to attend and listen to their perspectives.”

Furthermore, Davis stated that “The only real ‘evidence’ regarding these claims that isn’t pure speculation comes from the SU investigator, who has completed a full investigation and found zero evidence of any wrongdoing.”

Possnett said that they had been in frequent communication with RO Joe Bell regarding the investigation into the Class Act endorsement process: “I offered my full cooperation to assist in any way possible, and on his advice immediately removed any posts about that endorsement from my page – except for those which were ‘summaries’ of all endorsements.”

They also stated: “[T]hat being said, if I become aware of any incidents of impropriety, I will condemn them unconditionally; I believe in fairness, and I intend to uphold it however I can; I hope the same is true of all other candidates.”

SU President-Elect Addi Haran spoke to Cherwell, claiming that VP Welfare-Elect Alfie Davis tried to recruit her for a joint slate earlier in the academic year. 

Haran provided Cherwell with messages from September wherein Davis suggested they form a slate together: “I mean if you wanna do a like low-key slate type thing u know I’m down,” the messages read, alleging that the same was done by “hacks” in the previous year. Davis sent a further message to Haran in October which read: “Currently running I think Joel is gonna do equalities Eleanor academic and guy the enviro one which is a bit niche if anti union white queers but also would be a rly good team so.”

Haran explained her decision: “I declined the offer, because I think slates are bad for the democratic process even, and perhaps more, if they are private instead of the public slates we are used to – because then independent candidates will struggle, but if they are private then the voters can’t factor in the connection between the candidates to their decision making.”

In a statement to Cherwell, Davis accused Haran of running a smear campaign against them since the election began and said “I have never been part of a slate during any stage of the electoral process.”

Section 16 of the SU’s Election rules states that “Candidates must not combine into slates, which are groups of candidates who endorse each other and/or share campaign materials.” Returning Officer Joe Bell sent out an email after campaigns made posts advertising all endorsements in the same image: “to prevent confusion by voters I would suggest not reposting such images from now on.”

The email also reiterated that “[s]lates are banned. There should be no coordination of election campaigns between candidates, nor any formalised pacts. As I explained in the Candidate Briefing, whilst you may support each other as friends, as candidates you must be vigilant as to any risk of presenting yourselves to others as if you endorse each other…My interest, as yours should be, is ensuring no one unwittingly misunderstands your election campaigns, or unwittingly commits electoral malpractice.” 

When asked for comment on these allegations, former presidential candidate Isaac Chase-Rahman stated that he had “good reason to believe there have been multiple worrying cases of electoral malpractice in this election that have not been addressed properly.”

Another former presidential candidate Tim Green commented that “[i]t seems highly unlikely that the exact same six candidates could be endorsed by so many campaigns. What the ‘slate’ appeared to be doing was reposting the ‘endorsements’ from the SU campaigns which very conveniently had pictures of all of the members of the slate.” He added further that “[i]t is an insult to the rest of the candidates who ran what was in my view otherwise a very good-natured and policy-focused election. Policies, not slates, should be what wins elections.”

Regarding the alleged bias in campaign endorsements, former VP Activities and Communities candidate Di Bona stated: “I don’t think it’s a surprise that so many campaigns chose to endorse me following what, in every case, I believe to have been a fair and democratic process – but it’s also worth noting that not all campaigns that chose to endorse candidates for the elections chose to endorse me.” 

Possnett also said that “to the best of my knowledge, all SU Campaign endorsement opportunities were publicised openly, and all candidates were welcome and encouraged to participate.”

Candidates were also outraged by Davis’ characterisation of the group as “anti union white queers”. Former presidential candidate Pryce said that he had been aware of rumours that there might have been a slate, but stated that “[Davis’s message] highlighting their whiteness is deeply problematic and concerning, especially as potential sabbatical officers who are elected to represent all of Oxford.”

He further explained: “As a non-white person, hearing that a candidate used whiteness to classify themselves, and that they might have recruited white people on that basis to their slate is frightening. This is especially disturbing given they campaigned so strongly on inclusivity whilst, supposedly, simultaneously excluding people of colour.” 

Di Bona said that they did not recall having heard the phrase “anti union white queers” at any time in the past from anyone, stating that they were uncomfortable with the characterisation and saying “I hope everyone who voted for me did so because of my policies and experience in delivering change.”

They congratulated the VP Activities and Community-Elect Alisa Brown on running a great campaign: “I’m sure she’ll do a great job as Vice President – I wish her, and all the sabbatical-elects the best of luck.”

Aston further states: “I was never part of a slate; in fact I hadn’t decided to run until the day before nominations closed (Wednesday the 24th of January) and I had been to the SU ‘ask anything’ stall – yes, for a free hot chocolate, but also to ask about the role and what the election process was like.”

Davis has also since told Cherwell that “[t]he attempt to obscure and decontextualise my statement is deeply, deeply shameful. There has been zero mention that: I was being asked who was thinking of running by Addi and provided a list of such [and] I was pointing out all the interested candidates were ‘white queers’, raising my concerns over the lack of diversity in this potential team. Any claims that I was stating these characteristics as a positive, required features for success are entirely false, defamatory, and based on absolutely no evidence.”

Haran had messaged Davis a month prior to them sending said list, asking: “Do you know who else could possibly be running?” During this initial conversation, Davis had suggested the potential “low-key slate type thing.”

The SU responded by saying that the deadline for complaints had expired, and that all submitted complaints had been fully investigated and resolved, finding no wrongdoing in the endorsements process. Regarding the results, the SU stated that “The RO has called the result and is satisfied that the election was free and fair. Students may submit complaints related to the count up until 21:00 today, 9 Feb.”

Cherwell has contacted Miller and McWilliam for comment. This article is continuously being updated with new developments and comments.

Oxford University Short Film Festival 2024- Day 3

Adam Saxon
-
0
Oxford University Short Film Festival 2024- Day 3

Going to Wednesday’s Oxford University Short Film Festival (OUSFF) screening was my first experience of student-made films, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. The turnout was impressive, and Keble’s O’Reilly theatre was buzzing as we waited for the evening’s entertainment to start. Such a turnout is testament to the passion of those involved with the Oxford filmmaking scene and as a result, my hopes were high as the first film began after a short introduction from our hosts. I was not to be disappointed. 

The Narrows

The first film of the night was The Narrows, a thriller that draws the viewer in with its mysterious characters and plot. We follow a young ‘boy’ as he (she) joins the crew of a narrow boat transporting ominous cargo that appears to be both valuable and dangerous. The quality of the camerawork for this piece really stood out across all the films of the night, capturing beautiful shots of the canal in both light and dark scenes. The latter developed an eerie atmosphere which worked incredibly well, and the performances from the lead actors left me wanting to know more about the characters and their backgrounds. If anything, The Narrows is a short film I’d love to see made into a full-length piece so we could finally discover who the mysterious ‘Mr Lyle’ is. 

If the world was 1s, 2s, and 3s

A much shorter piece, the second film of the night pulled together nostalgic clips set to a poetic narrative about our perspectives on life. While the words represent a look into the thoughts of the film’s creator,it brings together skilfully edited clips from both Oxford and further afield. All in all, the film created a comforting yet inspiring feeling, indicating the power behind its poetry. 

BNOC

We’ve all been there: sat in a conversation where everyone else seems to know the person being discussed, but we’re oblivious. BNOC culture in Oxford is, arguably, out of control, and BNOC captures this perfectly. The film tracks the poisonous desire to fit in and be friends with campus celebrities that seems to affect so many people at this university, while at the same time ridiculing them masterfully. Marked with a beautiful and hilarious twist at the end, BNOC features some great cinematography around Oxford and clever use of sound to capture the anxieties and frailties of our protagonist.

Every Other Kid

A submission from NYU, this piece tackles the American culture that has led to declining teenage mental health and rising gun crime, especially through school shootings. While I was initially sceptical about the use of rap as a medium to convey these themes, and some of the earlier lines felt slightly weak in their delivery, I was left stunned by the way it was brought together at the end. A heart wrenching watch, Every Other Kid brings home its message incredibly effectively. This film reminds us that across the west, teenage mental health is under supported and young people feel ignored, but also reminds us of the beauty of life, and that there is (or there should be) a way through our struggles. 

Beijing Pigeons

Ending on a much lighter note, Beijing Pigeons brings us to the Hutongs of Beijing, where we meet a man (our ‘pigeon fancier’) and his wife. It follows a man who has been raising pigeons for his whole life and explores his and his wife’s home and their relationship. It is a lovely depiction of married life and shows us an incredibly peaceful world nestled in the heart of the city. The genuine pride and happiness on display from both of them makes me consider starting a pigeon sanctuary of my own. Again, it utilises camera work incredibly well, bringing the evening to a close with some calming shots of their home and the city. 

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the evening’s entertainment. I was astounded by the high quality of all of the student productions. Bringing together both national and international submissions, it is good to hear that this year’s festival is OUSFF’s biggest yet – and perhaps even its best.

1...121122123...2,514Page 122 of 2,514

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