The Oxford University Tory Reform Group is to merge with the Oxford University Conservative Association, in a surprising move announced yesterday.An emergency meeting was held last week to debate the future of the TRG, and voted unanimously for its dissolution. The group has been struggling to attract members. There was a distinct lack of interest at Freshers’ Fair this term, and events have been badly attended for the last two years. Even the emergency meeting itself had a poor turnout and only just reached quorum. Attendance has been declining dramatically since the end of 2005, when David Cameron was made leader of the Conservative Party. Members believe that this is one of the main reasons for the TRG’s decline, as both OUCA and the Conservative Party itself have shifted more towards the centre-right, and the TRG as a special group has become superfluous. In an email to TRG members, current President Luke Connoley said, ‘It is very easy for the student press to portray OUCA, given its history, as an elitist society, but I do believe that it has genuinely become more liberal. Being a broad political society as it is, and containing all wings of conservative political thought as it does, there will always be OUCA members to the 'right' of the political spectrum, but there will also always be OUCA members on the TRG side’ ‘The OUTRG has been in existence since 1965, which is ten years longer than the National TRG has existed. Seeing such a long-lived organisation with such a history of inviting interesting speakers, and challenging the views of Oxford students perish is inevitably sad.’
OUCA President Alex Stafford said, 'This speaks volumes about how both the Conservative Party and OUCA have adapted and changed for the better. I am very pleased that the TRG want to re-join us, and we welcome them back into the fold.'
Some students have been sceptical about the merge. A Regent’s Park 2nd year said ‘This is exactly why people are losing faith in political parties, all their views are merging and becoming the same. Cameron is appropriating Labour’s more trendy ideas and the differences between the parties are becoming fewer and fewer. I am not a conservative, but I do think that this shows a wider problem across British politics.’ All TRG members are being offered free membership of OUCA. ‘Should the political climate change significantly, either at a local level,or on a national level – significantly enough for there to be a renewed need for a liberal, centre-right conservative society in Oxford – then the OUTRG can always be re-formed and re-established,’ Connoley concluded.

A whodunit by Jamie Wolstenhulme and Charlotte King

(Based on an actual incident last week in the Westgate centre)  

It appeared to be an ordinary afternoon in the Westgate centre: everything in Sports World had 70% off, the Next Clearance Sale once again did a roaring trade in bop costumes and the corridor was full of kids truanting.  But something was amiss.  Without warning, the lives of all those innocent shoppers were suddenly put in grave danger. 

A white shirt on sale in Primark had caught fire. 

Whilst those around him lost their heads, a brave security guard raced over to save the day, throwing the shirt to the ground and stamping out the ferocious blaze.  However, the question on everyone’s lips was, who did it? And why? 

The more gullible among you may assume that this incident ha a simple scientific explanation.  We asked an expert chemist to give his thoughts: 

 “Well, as we all know, the shirts in Primark are made from excellent quality polyester. Polyester is a long chain synthetic fibre comprising of monomer units. This polymeric hydrocarbon chain is a fantastically efficient way of storing energy. All that would be needed to release this energy is the smallest of sparks, say, from a cigarette. If such a spark came in contact with the shirt, the polyester would become a fantastic source of heat and light. It would be in flames in seconds.” 

Very reassuring. But was it possible that the shirts caught fire without the need for such a spark? 

“Ah. Here you are talking about spontaneous combustion.  It is theoretically possible.     If the polyester were to gain enough energy from its surroundings it could reach the required activation energy for ignition and simply burst into flames.  But I would say that this is not very likely.  The thermal energy is much too low to meet the required activation barrier so there is an incredibly low probability of spontaneous combustion.  It was probably a careless cigarette.” 

However, Cherwell24 believes that something more sinister was afoot.  Smoking isn’t even allowed in the Westgate centre.  The idea that it was a careless cigarette is just what the crooks want you to think. So we have compiled a list of alternative explanations.  We leave it to you, dear reader, to decide the truth for yourself. 

1. In the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the controversial invitations to the union debate this week, it is possible that the fire was in fact a pre-meditated political protest.  Early reports that a brown shirt might have been the real target of the conflagration cannot be confirmed or denied. 

2. Another possibility is that an over-zealous fire safety officer might have been assessing the possible risks to public safety in Primark.  In his conscientious attempts to protect the public, he may have unwittingly endangered them.  We can only presume that, whilst the speed that the garment caught fire must have caused him some alarm, the quick thinking of the heroic security guard must surely have reassured him.  With such courageous men on hand we think that Primark is, on balance, a safe place to shop. 

3. Of course, commercial sabotage cannot be ruled out either.  To the delight of students across Oxford, Primark stocks notoriously cheap goods, often undercutting its rivals.  By demonstrating the remarkable capacity of Primark’s shirts to ignite, perhaps another shop was attempting to make us think twice about the quality of its merchandise.  But who would attempt such underhand tactics? Surely not Sports World, purveyor of equally low-priced goods, but operating at a disadvantage being a good 10 yards further into the Westgate Centre. 

4. Reliable sources have also alerted us to another possibility.  On your trips to the shopping Mecca that is the Westgate Centre, you may have noticed a suspicious character lurking around the entrance to Primark.  Barred from actually entering the premises, Curley waits near the entrance, beside the aforementioned shirts, strategically placed to monitor the activities of his shop-assistant girlfriend.  Perhaps, unaware of this observation, Curley’s girlfriend got a little to close to another retail assistant and Curley, in a fit of rage delved into his pocket for his walther PPK replica cigarette lighter.  Blinded by passion Curley may have attempted to sabotage this rendezvous by hurling his cigarette lighter at the oblivious couple.  Being something of a dud shot, this could easily have caught a shirt instead. 

5. But are we all missing something here? Has our attention been unduly captivated by the mystery of the shirt? Perhaps the real cunning lies in the fact that the shirt was nothing more than a distraction.  As it merrily went up in flames, it took the attention of all nearby shoppers and has continued to be the focus of this investigation here. But maybe it was merely a decoy? After all, Thornton’s is directly opposite Primark.  Selling delicious yet extortionately priced chocolates, wouldn’t they be the more likely target of light-fingered dealings? 

So, while we’ve been mulling over the different scenarios that may have caused the conflagration, perhaps the real crooks have been tucking in to their particularly fine selection of Thorntons Continental chocolates.  Or maybe…. it has been us doing both…..  

A number of German news sources, including the leading newspapers Die Zeit and Der Tagesspiegel, have been reporting last night’s Union forum as a “Rassisten-Konferenz”. I don’t think I need to translate.

A quick Google search shows the following uses of that term across the web:

1. Referring to a far-right conference in Russia, posted on The Phora, which appears to be a borderline white supremacist website. I don’t think I’ll link to that…

2. The same event, this time posted on Redskin, which claims to be a left-wing anti-fascist skinheads society. I might pass on the link again…

3. A report on the same far-right conference on an anti-racist information site, Redok.

4. Referring to potential anti-Semitism at the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, in an article on haGalil.com, the largest online Jewish magazine in German.

Talk about misguided association…UPDATE: To add to what was on the BBC last night, Der Spiegel are now reporting that the group of protesters who got inside the debating chamber went behind the piano and started playing Jingle Bells. Apparently at one point Luke Tryl tried to hide behind a group of security guards, and a demonstrator tried to follow after him. When stopped by a policeman, he piped up: "I was just trying to find out if this was the entrance to the comedy club." Fun stuff indeed.

Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external sites

“The Oxford Union believes first and foremost in freedom of speech: nothing more, nothing less.” This assertion, from the Union’s own website, serves to awaken some faint echo of a time when the Union was much more than a socially-elitist drinking club and engaged in debates which not only mattered but set precedents, stirred up intellectual responses, and changed history. I fear, however, that it also provided some kind of impetus for Luke Tryl’s ill-conceived and pathetically executed Free Speech Forum.

Few people would, I believe, disagree that once invitations had been issued to David Irving and Nick Griffin, it was impossible for the Union to rescind them without looking cowardly, ridiculous, and, indeed, against the freedom of speech. In passing, the fact that for many outside the University community, the actions and views of the Union are taken as representative of the entire student body is a sad reflection on the media, eager to play to stereotypes, and an impotent OUSU, unable to convince the wider public that we are not simply a bunch of arrogant ‘toffs’ (incidentally I heard a Labour City Councillor use this word to describe the Union hierarchy at the protest and recoiled from the ham-fisted use of class politics – such a stupid way to weaken the argument).

The whole problem with Tryl’s Forum was the totally confused rationale provided for welcoming two convicted Holocaust deniers into the chamber of the world’s most respected debating society. In his statement to Union members, again from the Union website, Tryl is at pains to point out that “pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing” and cites Home Office Minister Tony McNulty’s line that the intention should be “to crush these people in debate” (sorry, another parenthetical insert: I read McNulty’s line and heard anti-Fascist protesters screaming “fascist scum” and “smash the BNP”; try googling Himmler, Jews & crush).

Unfortunately, Tryl began this defence by asserting “these people are not being given a platform to extol their views”. Hold on, I thought giving them a platform was the whole point, so we could, metaphorically of course, kick the shit out of them? Wasn’t Dr Evan Harris speaking “to say that no platform policies are wrong”? Tryl’s desperate attempts to explain himself bordered on some sort of rhetorical imitation of the Keystone Cops, rushing around and falling into and over moral justifications and arguments while the villains of the piece, Irving and Griffin, stand around grinning at just how much they’ve got away with.

The point, surely, is that free speech should never have been the issue. In the context of Tryl’s monumental misjudgement, the two opposing positions have major problems: if you limit free speech, you deny yourself the opportunity to expose evil and fallacious opinions and defeat them in measured debate, the whole justification for the exercise; if you do not limit free speech, you seem forced into the position of agreeing with the BNP about their justification to air such views.

The right to freedom of speech does not mean the right to be given a particular platform or venue for abhorrent views. The BNP have the right, which they exercise in the face of strong and fair criticism, to air party political broadcasts and publish political literature; that is the freedom of speech deemed appropriate for a democracy. We must not forget that, however awful much of what they say is, they do represent the views of a thankfully small element of this country. But that right need not be extended any further. A final thought: if Tryl really wanted to expose views and crush in debates, rather than get his fifteen minutes, maybe he should have invited Irving and Griffin to debate the motion “This House believes the Holocaust is a lie”. I imagine they would be a lot slower to jump onto our once-venerated platform then.

Cherwell reports from outside and around the Union on the protests surrounding the free speech forum.

 

On the scene: Selena Wisnom, Tom Carpenter, Dan Millichip and Rhiannon Nicolson

 

See also: Interview with Luke Tryl

 

Sam Harding says bah humbug to the shops that think Christmas begins in October 
 

From October, the tinny strains of carols start to echo down the supermarket aisles. Had they been two months later we might have found them uplifting, but this early on frankly, they just make you feel rather sick. So why do stores feel the need to force the festivities upon us so early on? 

Logically speaking, it makes perfect business sense. It is the 21^st century after all and Christmas has moved away from a purely religious festival to a frenzy of consumerism. Every aspect, from the parties to the presents, is about spending, mostly on disposables. This means that encouraging consumers to get caught up in this frenzy earlier on in the year has huge financial potential. All the managers I have worked for admit that it makes a great deal of profit. But some consumers are fighting back to what they see as a pressure to spend more and more, over a longer period of time. 

Sarah, a local shopper who I met on Cornmarket, said that “ they [Oxford’s local shops] try to force us into the Christmas spirit so early on that by the time I’d actually start thinking about Christmas myself, I’m sick of it already! It really wakes you up to how materialistic Christmas has become in England.”  

She makes a fair point.  Of course, this is not to say that we shouldn’t enjoy Christmas and all the festivities that go with it.  But can’t we have them at an appropriate time, and in moderation? Most of us put up our trees in early December.  Early October is taking things too far.   

Encouragingly, one shop assistant that I spoke to said that her manager was retaliating against the premature Christmas displays in neighbouring shops, and was refusing to put up any decorations until late November. An admirable move indeed.  We can only hope that the shop will not suffer as a result. I for one would far more happily shop somewhere where I won’t be choked in cheap tinsel and have to listen to another cover of ‘Santa Claus Is Coming To Town’.  All I can say is, if he saw Cornmarket in October, he might well turn around.  

The festive season has been prematurely over-hyped, and ‘tis the season to be jolly might well need a timescale in the future. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have our festive cheer, we’d just like to see it displayed with our good old-fashioned British reserve.  

Rhiannon Nicholson and Daniel Millichip interview Union President Luke Tryl about his term in office.

 

See also: Protests at Union over free speech debate

Protesters have forced a delayed start for the controversial Free Speech Forum, due to be held this evening at the Oxford Union. The event, scheduled to begin at 8:30 pm, was delayed by nearly two hours.  Five hundred protesters gathered outside the gates of the society, blocking members from entering the grounds for the event. Approximately thirty protesters then climbed over walls and pushed through barriers to enter the chamber, staging a sit-down protest. Irving and Griffin had already arrived at the building several hours prior to the scheduled time of the event. The Union has been under fire from anti-fascist groups for the invitation of Griffin, the leader of the BNP, and Irving, previously imprisoned for holocaust denial in Austria.
 

An Oxford MP has spoken up in defence of the Union's decision to keep open its invitation to Nick Griffin and David Irving at the controversial Free Speech debate which takes place later this evening. Dr Evan Harris, who has agreed to take part in the debate tonight, rejected the claims made by Dr Julian Lewis that the debate would give the speakers "an aura of respectability". Speaking earlier on Radio 4's Today Show, Harris claimed that he was making a stand against the "pick and choose mentality" used to support no platform policies, saying that it was reasonable within a university setting to give the speakers an opportunity to speak.Harris described Irving as a "horrible, discredited historian" and both of tonight's controversial speakers as "deeply unpleasant" but raised concerns over where the line would be drawn once platforms start to be denied. He told Radio 4: "I wouldn't be attending tonight if there wasn't this huge campaign for no platform […]"I'm making a stand to say that no platform policies are wrong."

Did you hear the one about the hacks, the socialists and the huge tombola prize? Well here you go.

Friday night saw the Bundespresseball, Germany's annual media ball, which took place at the InterContinental in Berlin. It’s been a regular event since 1951, and the centrepiece is a tombola intended to help fund cash-strapped journalists. All a very benevolent undertaking, you’d think.

Well, that is other than the top prize — a seven-day trip to New Orleans, including tickets to the NBA All-Star Game, plus an Apple iPhone with a two-year T-Mobile contract. The winner? None other than Dietmar Bartsch, the top man running the financial workings of Die Linke, Germany’s left-wing party.

Observers were quick to point out that Bartsch, as a socialist, was (just slightly) contradicting his own principles by taking advantage of three capitalist-driven prizes. As the blog of Germany’s leading evening news programme, Tagesschau, reports, Bartsch had a snappy retort: “It’s the just distribution of wealth from the top to the bottom.” Apparently he whizzed off to the hotel bar to have a cigar as soon he’d said this, presumably to avoid further probing. I don’t blame him; his party has this to say about America:

The aims of imperial policy under the leadership of the United States of America are a world totally subordinated to capital exploitation, unhindered access to raw materials and sources of energy, and the expansion of domination and spheres of influence

and holds this stance on the aftermath of the Cold War:

When the greatest counterweight ceased to exist with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the destructive tendencies of the unbridled capitalist market were able to develop more and more.

Hold off with the wealth distribution for the moment — will a man with these political affiliations even be let into the USA?

Cherwell24 is not responsible for the content of external sites