Saturday 27th June 2026
Blog Page 669

Why a No-Deal Brexit could mean the end of British Film

Charlotte Hall
-
0
Why a No-Deal Brexit could mean the end of British Film

“Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a f*cking big television.” 

Trainspotting: Real black comedy, grime, visual experimentation, tackling difficult subject matter with creative force and cutting wit, and above all else, an against-the-grain counterpoint to the relentless optimism of Hollywood blockbusters. To me that encapsulates the spirit of independent British cinema and TV; scenes to remember, scenes to rebel.

But it’s independent British films that have the most to fear in the looming shadow of a no-deal Brexit. Most people working in the film industry voted against leaving altogether – why? Because the European Union massively supports creative industries in a way that our government alone either can’t or won’t. 

For now, our film industry is doing well. In fact, it’s booming. Gordon Brown’s 2005 tax reliefs have made our little island into one of the top choices for international partnerships in film. Investments into studio expansion have paid off; in the last two years production spend has been at an all-time high. The tax reliefs mean companies can reclaim up to 25% of their spending so long as their project passes a cultural test. Generally, this means having a crew or cast with a portion of British or EEA nationals and spending over 10% of the total budget in Britain, for example in local studios. This is an attractive offer for production firms of all sizes, from the American bigwigs to small cross-cultural projects within the EU. Add to this a recent resurgence of the quirky British cult film and new sources of revenue like streaming sites such as Netflix, and there you have it: a financial and cultural boom. 

The government has promised to keep the tax reliefs in place post-Brexit, with or without a deal. So, what’s the problem? 

Free Movement of People

The film industry benefits immeasurably from the conveniences of EU membership, often in ways that are not immediately obvious and make the lengthy endeavour of filmmaking that much easier and more cost-effective. One of these benefits is the free movement of people across borders. 

In August Boris Johnson insisted that this free movement of labour will end with the Brexit deadline. Leaving aside exactly how he expects to implement this disastrous policy, this could be seriously bad news for our films. A huge portion of the workers on productions in the UK are EU nationals, from the construction teams building complex sets to the highly skilled animators that bring worlds and their creatures to life. In a statement in 2017, Lord Puttnam, producer of titles like Bugsy Malone and The Killing Fields and member of the house of lords, highlighted that of the 25,000 people employed by visual effects and animation departments “between 31% and 35% are EU nationals, and a further 12% are from non-EU countries.” Making it more difficult for Europeans to take these jobs won’t “free up” positions for British animators either: our education system lags notoriously behind in the push for STEAM skills and has consistently failed to invest in the advancement of special effects. There are simply not enough people skilled enough to take over and there is no coherent plan in place to address this deficit going forward. 

In the words of the British Film Institute, who commissioned this research project directly after the referendum, “abolishing free movement risks not only eroding the available pool of staff and talent across the industry, but would also adversely impact the highly skilled activities in VFX, post production, animation and video games.” 

Add to that the costs, complexity and logistical nightmare of acquiring visas for a full film crew and cast when filming in European locations – think James Bond bombing it down a beautiful mountain track in Siena –  and it’s easy to see why people are worried. 

Free Movement of Goods

Equally, the cost of transporting all the required equipment between countries, currently an easy and affordable undertaking thanks to the free movement of goods, will definitely go up in the case of no-deal Brexit. More costs, especially previously avoidable ones, are not good for any industry.

Similarly, the transferral of data is relatively straight-forward and cheap within the EU. In a no deal situation however, this would no longer be this case and in the globalised, internet driven world in which we live this could have a catastrophic impact across the board. When I contacted Margot James, the previous Minister of State for Digital and Creative Industries, she stated that “Data transfers between the UK and other member states are more substantial than even manufacturing exports. If we leave without a deal smooth data transfers will be at risk and this will affect the creative industries.” Data transferral is an indispensable part of modern global business and more industries than film will suffer from this change in particular.

Investment

Whilst the aforementioned complications would affect the whole of the screen sector, it’s nevertheless likely that big corporations, like American giants Warner Bros, Disney, Universal Pictures and, according to recent conjecture, the state-owned Chinese film industry, will continue to be attracted to the tax arrangement in the UK. Big companies can afford to pay the extra costs and outsource jobs internationally where skills and employees are lacking. But it will make it very difficult (not to say impossible) for smaller productions.

So, what gets lost? Ironically, British Film.  

Independent productions especially but production firms generally receive an admirable chunk of their funding from EU investments. Organizations like Creative Europe were founded by the Union to invest in creative sectors across the continent and encourage cultural projects. The King’s Speech, for example, almost never happened due to underfunding, until it received over £1million in EU money. 

And losing that funding means more than missing out on a few indie films. It could be crippling for the long-term future of the industry. “This kind of funding allows productions to take creative risks,” says Nick Hall, a Manchester film school graduate and free-lance assistant art director “in the context of a no deal exit from the EU those will become too big of a financial risk and would mean the cultural relevance of UK filmmaking would suffer.” Because in a world where only big, established corporations can afford to make films, the next generation of filmmakers is left with no way to develop themselves. “There’s nowhere for aspiring directors and producers to cut their teeth. You just don’t get entrusted with million-dollar budgets based on directing a few student films.” 

Christoph Jankowski, the Head of Culture for Creative Europe’s UK desk, pointed out in a recent interview that the HM Treasury had previously offered to replace any immediate funding for projects selected by the EU. Yet the reactionary and changeable nature of the new Conservative party as well as their historical reluctance to support independent British cinema doesn’t make the fulfilment of such promises seem particularly likely. And if Margot James is right that “overall the sector will be less affected by Brexit, with or without a deal, than manufacturing and farming,” then even if labour wins, what kind of priority does film take in opposition to farming and fishing subsidies?

The Verdict

Brexit in general, but especially a no-deal Brexit, will in all likelihood financially cripple independent film. If not in the short term (though very likely in the short term too), it will have carry-on effects on the next generation of filmmakers. We’ll lose access to a whole host of advantages, from funding to skilled experts, without which it’ll be hard to even get the ball rolling on a lot of projects.   

It’s not to say big production corporations don’t produce good films, but they rarely capture the unique voice of British TV created in our independent productions. For the sake of the well-knowns like LGBTQ+ staple Pride or sleeper-hit Slumdog Millionaire to the hundreds of smaller productions that made our favourite directors, actors, special effects artists, etc into what they are today, we need to find a way to ensure the future of our home-grown film industry. 

We don’t want big f*cking television. We want our independent films. 

Balliol students launch petition to bar PM from college premises

Luke Dunne
-
0
Balliol students launch petition to bar PM from college premises

Balliol students today launched a petition to disavow the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, an alumnus of the college.

The petition argues that Johnson’s recent prorogation of parliament is ‘effectively a political coup’ and ‘has seriously undermined democracy’.

The petition then calls on the college to publicly disavow Johnson, with measures including a ban on Johnson entering college grounds, a ban on displaying ‘depictions of or tributes to Boris’ and a suspension of his ‘alumni status and any benefits that may entail.

At the time of writing, the petition has 138 signatures.

The full petition is given below:

“Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a former student of Balliol College, Oxford. With his parliamentary shutdown, effectively a political coup, Johnson has seriously undermined democracy in the United Kingdom. Despite the far-reaching and devastating implications of a no-deal Brexit for many of its students and members of staff, Balliol College has yet to condemn his actions.

“With this petition, we hope to show the College that many of its members are appalled by these actions, and to call upon it to publicly disavow Boris Johnson insofar as:

“1) Boris Johnson should be prevented from attending any Balliol College events, and from entering College grounds;

“2) Depictions of or tributes to Boris Johnson, such as portraits, should not be commissioned or displayed on College premises;

“3) His alumni status and any benefits that that may entail should be suspended with immediate effect.

“Balliol College’s student body has consistently demonstrated its commitment to democratic values. We call upon its members to sign this petition in order to to put pressure on College administration to take definitive action in this matter. Please sign this petition, and share it widely. Thank you.”

One of the authors of the petition, Balliol student Andrew MacGowan, told Cherwell: “Nobody voted for the no-deal policy Boris is attempting to force through with his October 31st deadline, and he hasn’t offered any concrete evidence of progress in Brussels. The leak of Operation Yellowhammer details the economic devastation that would result from a no-deal Brexit.”

He continued: “A bomb went off near the Irish border 3 weeks ago; we’ve had enough. The petition is a joint effort between Balliol JCR and MCR members to make it known that Boris does not speak for us, the Bullingdon club is evidently not a political education, and to paraphrase Churchill, that Britain will not ‘give in’.”

A spokesperson for Our Future Our Choice told Cherwell: “Boris Johnson has disgraced the office of Prime Minister. His mandate comes from 0.14% of the electorate, and to force a No-Deal Brexit upon the UK by proroguing Parliament is deeply concerning and profoundly undemocratic. The public deserve to be consulted in the form of a referendum with clearly defined options, which should include our current deal with the EU.”

Balliol and the office of the Prime Minister have been contacted for comment.

This article was originally published on Medium.

Counter homelessness initiative launched in South Oxfordshire

Luke Dunne
-
0
Counter homelessness initiative launched in South Oxfordshire

Soha House are jointly funding the ‘Housing First’ project with South Oxford District Council, which focuses on providing housing for homeless people with complex needs. Six homes are being provided in the ‘pilot’ stage of the initiative.

Soha House is one of the largest housing associations in the country when measured by growth and has over 6,700 homes in Oxfordshire alone. 

Aspire Oxford, a homelessness support charity, are also working with SODC and Soha House on the project. Their Chief Executive Officer Paul Roberts told Cherwell, “Aspire are delighted to be working in partnership with Soha Housing and SODC to deliver this Housing First project.”

“We applaud Soha Housing and SODC for showing leadership by piloting this model in partnership with Aspire, and hope that other housing associations will emulate this approach in their areas across Oxfordshire.”

“Aspire will be providing intensive, wrap-around support to former rough sleepers with complex needs, which allows them to make significant, positive changes to their lives. The Housing First approach is a vital way forward in tackling our community’s growing homeless crisis and we look forward to working in partnership with Soha Housing and SODC as the project develops.”

Director of Services and Communities at Soha Maureen Adams said, “Soha is committed to working in partnership with SODC to tackle homelessness. Our residents are fully behind this project and want to see us make a difference in their locality.”

When asked about the potential for expanding the project, Ms Adams said, “Soha is undertaking an independent evaluation on the findings of the project so that it can warrant additional support and be rolled out with partners in other locations”. 

Councillor David Rouane, cabinet member for South Oxfordshire District Council, said, “South Oxfordshire District Council is delighted to be working with Soha and Aspire to help some of the district’s most vulnerable residents.  Housing First provides a stable, supportive environment for former rough sleepers to rebuild their lives”. 

Fresh sexual assault allegations against Oxford professor

Luke Dunne
-
0
Fresh sexual assault allegations against Oxford professor

Tariq Ramadan, Oxford Professor of Contemporary Islam, is facing fresh accusations of sexual assault. 

A woman, as yet unnamed, came forward and gave a report to French police in May of this year, details of which surfaced recently following a leak to Le Journal du Dimanche and Europe 1. The assault itself is alleged to have happened in 2014. This comes after numerous women accused Ramadan of sexual assault and manipulation. 

The first accusations against Ramadan emerged in October 2017, when activist Henda Ayari filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office in Rouen, which said that Ramadan had sexually assaulted her in a Paris hotel room. Ayari had previously recorded the incident without naming the perpetrator in her 2016 book ‘J’ai choisi d’être libre’ (‘I Chose to be Free’).

Just days after Ayari came forward, a second woman filed a complaint stating that Ramadan assaulted and raped her in his hotel room. 

Since then, further accusations have been made about Ramadan’s behaviour, including by a third woman who claimed that Ramadan sent her ‘pornographic’ messages as well as threatening and blackmailing her, as well as four women who came forward with allegations that Ramadan sexually assaulted them while they were teenagers. 

On 31 January 2018, Ramadan was taken into custody by the French police, and was released on bail nine months later. 

Although Ramadan continued to teach for a short while after the first allegations surfaced, on 7th November 2017 he took an ‘agreed leave of absence’ from his University duties. At the time, the faculty of Theology and Religion apologized for their “lack of communication” with students. 

Eugene Rogan, director of the Middle East Centre when Ramadan was suspended, said the following at the time; “It’s not just about sexual violence. For some students it’s just another way for Europeans to gang up against a prominent Muslim intellectual. We must protect Muslim students who believe and trust in him, and protect that trust”. 

The University’s statement on the Ramadan accusations said: “The University has consistently acknowledged the gravity of the allegations against Professor Ramadan, while emphasising the importance of fairness and the principles of justice and due process.” 

“An agreed leave of absence implies no presumption or acceptance of guilt and allows Professor Ramadan to address the extremely serious allegations made against him, all of which he categorically denies, while meeting our principal concern – addressing heightened and understandable distress, and putting first the wellbeing of our students and staff.” 

A statement posted on Ramadan’s website acknowledged the new allegations, saying “I am, of course, aware of the investigation’s new elements and the new complaint, which the media spoke of abundantly on Sunday, August 25th.” “I will speak in the coming days to present the facts with determination, clarity and serenity. In sha Allah”. 

Twelfth Night – Shakespeare’s Rose blossoms in York and Oxford

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
Twelfth Night – Shakespeare’s Rose blossoms in York and Oxford

Although Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night was originally written for its namesake winter festival, which was celebrated with excess of music, masked balls, misrule, and general revelry, Shakespeare’s subtitle, “What You Will”, is perhaps more apt for Joyce Branagh’s sunny Jazz Age re-imagining. Shakespeare’s cold, pagan winter becomes a warm, witty and wonderful summer treat, pleasing the youngest to oldest audience members at Shakespeare’s Rose Theatre in York this summer.

Wonderful lightness in tone lets the comic character of Twelfth Night shine through making the Shakespearean language highly accessible. Having seen this company’s production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream last year (now showing at the Rose Theatre at Blenheim Palace, Oxford), familiar faces and themes of mistaken identity and muddled love plots, were initially reminiscent of that play. However, the magic of this production is conjured not from fairies and enchantment but from pitch-perfect music and assured comic delivery.

Whilst this approach was highly effective in bringing out the comedy and entertainment, often lost to the modern audience, the airy festive tone jarred somewhat with the dark and morally troubling side plot of the gaslighting of Malvolio by Sir Toby Belch and Maria, both brilliantly realised by Fine Time Fontayne as an aging but cuddly libertine and the vivacious Rina Mahoney. The image of Malvolio in the infamous cross gartered yellow stockings garnered the expected laughs. However, there is no escape from the fact that their imprisonment and mental torture of Malvolio is disproportionately cruel. Claire Storey’s slightly pompous Malvolio lacked sufficient malice to justify such maltreatment suffered at the hands of fools. This play on the moral ambiguity of the Malvolio side-plot suggested, perhaps, that there is a price to be paid for the revels we all enjoy.

The Rose’s Illyria sparkled and danced its way into the hearts of the audience thanks to Max Dorey’s Art-Deco inspired set, Sara Perks’ Gatsby-esque stylings and Eammon O’Dwyer’s jovial jazz score. This all brought life and vivacity to the stage from the first song and dance of the play, setting the festive tone which the actors maintained throughout the performance with communal dancing on stage and with the groundlings at the beginning and end of the play. 

A large cast of nearly 20, enabled all of the actors to inhabit their role. The entire cast made great efforts to convey the full meaning of their lines, whether that was with a well-timed pause, allowing the audience time to understand a joke, or a subtle raising of an arch eyebrow teasing out the innuendo. As the key player of the comically complicated love triangle, Olivia Onyehara made a wonderful Viola with a clear relationship with the audience through her wryly perplexed asides whilst Leandra Ashton as Olivia played blissfully, and lustfully, unaware of Viola’s true identity. Completing the love triangle Mark Holgate imagined lovestruck Orsino as seemingly unaware that his high-minded pronouncements on love made him comically pompous. Feste the fool is a difficult character to master in a modern reinterpretation – the idea of a court jester being so odd and outdated, although some modern leaders appear to combine the roles of both king and fool. However, Clare Corbett’s Chaplin-esque interpretation of this character deftly combined clowning elements with the wit and wordplay while not shying away from the character’s moral ambiguity.

The character of Sir Andrew Aguecheek can sometimes seem overshadowed by that of Sir Toby. Indeed, in this production Fine Time Fontayne’s ability to conjure bottles of booze out of thin air suggested that he was going to run away with all of the comic episodes. However, Alex Phelps as Sir Andrew gave a hint of Elizabethan dandy strutting in his short-cut ochre raincoat, his every mock curtsey and flourish was a finely judged manifestation of his character’s eccentricity – like a PG Wodehouse toff of the most ridiculous order – this is quite frankly genius and worth the admission price all on its own.

For a rollickingly good few hours of good-humoured Shakespeare there is none better in the North of England this summer. This seasonal pop-up theatre, emulating the Globe in its design, is developing into a cultural highlight, allowing high quality and high energy Shakespeare to be seen outside of London in beautiful locations- historic York and Blenheim Palace, Oxford. I for one hope that the Rose Theatre will blossom in the years to come.

Rose Theatre productions 2019

York: Twelfth Night, Hamlet, The Tempest and Henry V.

Oxford: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth and Richard III.

Debate: Should you choose Leeds over Oxford?

-
-
0
Debate: Should you choose Leeds over Oxford?

Lucy Dyer: Yes, individuals should make choices that best suit them

Having a twin sister who has been studying at Leeds whilst I study at Oxford gives me a unique standpoint on this person’s situation, and an insight into the peaks and pitfalls of both university experiences. On balance, Oxford is certainly not always the right choice for a prospective student.

I may seem ridiculous in arguing against choosing to study at my own university. However, regardless of the Oxford’s renowned name and its numerous networking opportunities, I firmly believe people should base their university choice on which course and environment is best for them.

To start with, the options for degree courses vary massively from university to university: in fact, I could do an entirely different French degree at Leeds to the one I’m doing at Oxford. Studying the wrong course in order to get a degree from the “right” university could leave a student disillusioned and uninterested, wasting academic potential just to add Oxford to a CV.

Likewise, the environment in which a student wants to learn and live is very important. Some may prefer a bigger city like Leeds or want to mingle with students from a variety of UK regions – less likely in Oxford where the intake remains heavily biased towards the South East and Greater London (2016-2018 data).

In addition, those who want the typical British ‘university experience’ would probably be better off somewhere else. Oxford is an amazing university full of historic colleges, crazy traditions and hectic eight-week terms, but for me, it is hardly the ‘cooking on a shoestring, cheap beer, part-time job’ university life found in Leeds. If that is what a student is looking for, Oxford’s not their best option.

To me, a student choosing Oxford’s ‘prestige’ over a university better matched to them highlights a weak point in the way we value educational success. It shouldn’t be about status or what other people think: it isn’t their degree, and they won’t spend at least three years and £27,000 or more studying for it. Surely we should be encouraging young people to choose a degree to suit first and foremost their own interests and preferences. If an Oxford course ticks the right boxes that’s great. But doing an entire degree just to say “I went to Oxford” seems a waste of what could have been three years of much greater personal enjoyment and intellectual stimulation elsewhere.

With the amount of work students are expected to do and the shamefully notorious poor mental health among students today, it is vital that students study in a place that makes them happy and fulfilled. That, far above any reputation or outdated value system, should be the ultimate aim when choosing a university.

Marcin Pisanski: No, many reasons for rejecting Oxbridge are misguided

You know the gist. Oxford is a bastion of white male privilege and class prejudice. You don’t have the proper public school credentials? Keep out. We’re a university so self-loathing it covers itself in ‘Oxbridge Must Fall’ stickers, and our Union hosts debates about burning the uni to the ground. Oxford has a bad reputation.

So unsurprisingly, annually A-Levels results day brings us stories of bright pupils spurning Oxford. Some even go as far as sending their colleges rejection letters, backed unswervingly by The Guardian.

But does it make sense to reject a place which so many in the UK and abroad would sell a kidney to have? Many of those stories do list academic and course-related differences that explain some of the prospective students’ motives. But what they don’t hide is the most common factor of serious misconceptions about Oxford’s acceptance of minorities and state-schoolers.

Don’t get me wrong – there’s a great deal the departments and colleges could do to reduce the admissions gap between those from independent schools and others. We should overhaul our approach to BAME applicants and other underrepresented groups. But the university is trying, and every year the admissions statistics improve.

Those who reject offers are also mistaken in thinking access-related admissions issues are representative of real Oxford experiences. Oxford and Cambridge are reputation-conscious, and UK-wide discrimination against the socially disadvantaged is less prevalent here. I hardly know the school background of most of my friends.

Other common arguments – suggesting Oxford’s designed for students who cherish formal halls with upper-middle class subcultures or specific social expectations – are equally misguided. Colleges are what you make them. Their unique teaching methods and living situations allowing for unparalled University freedoms. No one can fully plan their uni experience so choosing lower-ranked institution over Oxbridge is betting against the odds – and your future life chances.

Being educated at Oxbridge has life-long benefits; it’s pointless arguing otherwise. You won’t have the same opportunities open even if you work hard elsewhere. Nor should you: voluntarily rejecting the offer is hardly an entitlement to complain about how doing so limits your connections and your chance to thrive amongst other top students from the UK and globally.

Some industries weigh that difference more than the others, like politics and the Bar. There’s no good reason to limit your employment prospects so early even if you haven’t yet considered careers in those. Oxbridge also has more to offer financially to undergraduates of all Russel Group universities, with guaranteed income-based bursaries as well as other discretionary funds offered by colleges.

So why would anyone reject an undergraduate experience with unparalleled academic, financial and pastoral support? Doing so based on grounds of inaccurate stereotypes is an offence against your own well-being. It’s time the media stopped promoting these delusions for their own political agendas.

“Absolute shambles”: students prepared to take Ruskin College to court

Rachel Cordery
-
0
“Absolute shambles”: students prepared to take Ruskin College to court

Students are prepared to take Ruskin College court over the difficulties many faced in trying to obtain their degree results.  

The latest in a series of controversies facing the college, students from almost every course suffered months of uncertainty after completing their final exams.

Speaking to the Oxford Mail, 22-year-old Aaron Miles said the college told BA Social and Political Studies students that their results would be delayed for “a small amount of time” in July.

“As it turns out, the results in question have never arrived and we fear they never will. This is the same for most of the students who left in 2019.”

A statement from Ruskin College said a “small number of students” final results had been delayed after the resignation of the external examiners appointed by the Open University. “New examiners have now been appointed and final results will be available shortly.”

“We have not been made aware of any students whose places on masters courses have been affected by delays to marks; in this circumstance we would expect to be contacted by the relevant institution whereby this matter could easily be resolved.”

“Our students are our primary concern and we have been in regular contact with them over the summer. We will continue to support them moving forward.”

A controversial year, Ruskin College faced accusations of “victimisation” following several disciplinary and redundancy threats directed at members of the University and College Union (UCU) earlier this year.

A rally was organised in April following the suspension of Dr Lee Humber, the UCU’s representative at Ruskin College.

At the time, the UCU said in a press release: “UCU is calling for the immediate reinstatement of Dr Lee Humber and for the bogus charges against Lee to be dropped.”

Last month, the entire social work department of the college also resigned after four tutors were made redundant.

UCAS promotes high-interest loans to desperate students

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
UCAS promotes high-interest loans to desperate students

UCAS has been criticised for promoting high interest loans to prospective students. Future Finance says it offers its loans to students who are either ineligible for government-backed loans, or for whom these loans are insufficient.

In an email sent out in August with the subject “[First name], is your Student Finance going to be enough?”, UCAS advertised Future Finance as the solution to inadequate government loans.

The company has received poor reviews for its long-term loans to students which charge interest rates of up to 23.7% in contrast to the 5.4% interest on government-backed loans. This can result in students repaying more than three times the original amount of their loan over a decade.

Unlike government-backed loans, Future Finance loan repayment is not conditional on graduate earnings and the debt does not automatically clear after thirty years.

A spokesperson for Future Finance told Cherwell: “Future Finance believe strongly that they are backing the next generation and enabling high potential students to gain access to the education that they deserve and will continue to build on their product offering to support student and graduate needs due to the rising costs of education in the U.K.”

Personal finance expert Martin Lewis has called on UCAS to stop advertising such companies and has warned students that commercial loans are “inappropriate for the huge majority of recipients”.

He wrote: “Official student loans currently have a maximum interest rate of 5.4%, while these commercial loans have rates of up to 23.7% – worse than most high street credit cards, and far worse than the interest-free overdrafts most students have access to.”

Online discussions show that many desperate customers see Future Finance as the last resort after being rejected for a loan by government and bank lenders. In their email to students, Future Finance wrote: “We are backing the next generation with smart and simple finance designed around your potential, not your current situation.”

Unlike conventional loans, repayments start during study at around £5 per month. However, within months of graduating repayments rise to several hundred pounds per month – regardless of the student’s ability to pay.

Future Finance also charge an ‘origination fee’ of 6.5% of the total loan amount, which is highly unusual for the industry, and have been criticised for costly and frequent fees.

Cherwell spoke to the mother of one Future Finance customer, Rebecca, who took out a loan in order to pursue a two-year Master’s degree. Rebecca was told by Future Finance that they would only give her one year’s money at first. “They insisted that there would be no problem with the second years loan,” her mum Joanne told Cherwell.

“But when it came to the second year they turned her down and said she no longer fitted their criteria. My daughter was heartbroken and confused and so I contacted them and asked what the problem was and they just said Rebecca no longer fitted their criteria.

“I asked them how the criteria had changed and they told me they did not have to give me that information. I pointed out that Rebecca had never missed a payment and that all her payments were made on time. I also pointed out that her guarantor was happy and trusted Rebecca to make her payments. All we got was that Rebecca no longer fitted their criteria.

“I had the intention of going to the Ombudsman but Rebecca was in London, I lived in Milton Keynes but was in Liverpool most of the time looking after my mum with Dementia. 
Rebecca had done 9 out of the 10 modules for her Masters. She wrote to her local MP for help and the Minister for Education but got no replies.

“Rebecca is still paying back Future Finance for a wasted year and no Masters and I am beyond angry. Rebecca was broken hearted when this happened as she had worked so hard. I will never forgive Future Finance for this.”

In an open letter to the UCAS board of trustees, Martin Lewis writes: “In allowing inclusion of this advert, we believe your charity breached an ethical line, and failed in its duty of care to the people it communicates with, which includes a high proportion of school leavers.

“UCAS has privileged, monopoly access to this young and impressionable audience. It is also seen as an institutional authority and therefore adverts contained in your email are effectively being legitimised by inclusion, and some may even mistake it for a direct recommendation.”

CEO of Future Finance Olga Dolchenko told Cherwell: “Future finance is a highly valued source of funding for under- and postgraduate students who need extra financial assistance over and above government funded support. Over the past five years we have lent over £100m to 15,000 satisfied students across every university in the UK. Given undergraduate students often have no credit history or a poor rating, they are unable to access traditional forms of finance and either struggle to make ends meet or choose inappropriate options such as pay day lending.

“We fill this gap, but never encourage students to borrow more than they can afford. We always advise students to go the Student Loans Company before seeking funding from us. “As the only specialist lender to undergraduates in the UK, we offer fully transparent and flexible loans with features specifically designed for students, such as minimal monthly payments during their studies, repayment holidays and no early repayment fees. Our terms are competitive and we actively encourage financial responsibility by engaging with our borrowers from the outset of our relationship.”

Playing with food: how meals turn political

Ailin Cheng
-
0
Playing with food: how meals turn political

Earlier this year, the Independent Group posted a photo of the party gathered around a Nando’s table, seated at a seemingly casual and friendly dinner. The photo marks a series of attempts to increase publicity in the early days of the party’s existence. The PR idea behind the photo is cringingly obvious: it is a statement that these politicians are just normal, humble people who can indulge in a cheeky Nandos, totally relatable and down-to-earth with the general public. 

The execution falls rather flat. The staged nature of the whole thing makes the picture vulnerable to mockery, and exposes the in-depth planning that spurred the idea of a ‘spontaneous’ Nandos. It is a thinly-veiled performative gesture, delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Also, Anna Soubry seems to have ordered a salad, which naturally demanded an onslaught of responses on Twitter. 

Food has long been more than a means of sustenance; it takes on a political agenda and becomes a means of performing social identities. Traceable throughout history, feasts and banquets are continually used to exhibit power. King James I was known for his ante-suppers, in which extravagant foods were simply displayed – and not even eaten – before the actual feast. 

In our time, those in power actively try to shed the elitism that their political status carries. There is an increasing emphasis on being in touch with the wider public, and appearing ‘down to earth’. When talking about food before becoming Prime Minister, Tony Blair unashamedly revealed that his favourite meal was fettuccine with olive-oil, sun-dried tomatoes and capers. Unconvincingly, this apparently changed to fish and chips after Blair entered number ten. 

Food has proven capable of derailing a politician’s career. We all remember Ed Miliband and his bacon sandwich. Five years later, a Google search still returns ‘Ed Miliband bacon sandwich’ as a top suggestion upon typing the politician’s name. The then-Labour leader was mocked remorselessly online, and the incidence even became worthy of its own Wikipedia page. Yet since Miliband shed his party leader title, he has shown a more joking and self-deprecating side that has actually turned the bacon sandwich incident into something almost endearing. 

This January, ITV News tweeted, ‘cut your meat intake to half a rasher to save the planet?’ Miliband jokingly responded with a simple ‘yes,’ which soon went viral. He spawned a series of tweets in support for his light-hearted self-deprecation. 

Miliband’s viral bacon sandwich encounter no doubt secured ideas that food can be used to promote a political agenda. David Cameron has attempted to capitalise on this, albeit not so successfully. In 2012, the then-Prime Minister was facing an onslaught of protests at the new ‘pasty tax.’ The government had proposed a new twenty-percent tax on fresh baked foods that were served warm. The chief executive of Greggs accused Cameron and his ministers of being ‘out of touch’ with the population. 

Cameron rather lamely appealed, “I’m a pasty eater myself. I go to Cornwall on holiday. I love a hot pasty.” Articles soon emerged pointing to the inconsistencies of Cameron’s claims: the Prime Minister had given an anecdote about last having a pasty in the West Cornwall Pasty Company outlet in Leeds station, but journalists were quick to point that this branch had closed in 2007, exposing obvious gaps in Cameron’s story. 

Across the pond, democrat candidates were seen vying for support at the Iowa State Fair last month while performing their enjoyment of the food on offer. Bernie Sanders nodded with enthusiasm and munched into his corndog, while Kamala Harris rather eloquently conveyed the delights of her meal: “I really…like, it’s so good.” This was all a well-planned manoeuvre by the candidates: since 1967, Iowa has had huge sway in the presidential nominating process, and thus also in determining the future President. The food fair was the opportunity for the twenty plus democratic candidates to compete for the nomination and flex their personal qualities – a hugely important opportunity because Iowa is the first state to vote on the nomination. 

Food brings with it a mixed effect in politics: while used as a tool to convey politicians as fun, relatable individuals, it also offers a sort of perverse pleasure in watching political figures debase themselves in the act of bodily consumption. In an incident paralleling the Miliband sandwich disaster, Dianne Abbot was spotted drinking a M&S mojito on the London Overground. Abbot had to issue a public apology, given the 2008 law which prohibited drinking on public transport. The photo went viral, but responses were mixed. Abbot was defended as much as she was mocked, with many joking that her situation was highly relatable and even suggesting she hide her alcohol in a water bottle next time. 

Meanwhile, when David Cameron insistently used a knife and fork to eat a hotdog, he was mocked remorselessly for the incongruous choice of eating utensils. Facing the re-election race in 2015, Cameron bravely had a meal at a voter’s garden. The internet was quick to notice his knife and fork. Twitter erupted with posts centring around the topic, ‘Britain’s prime minister does not know how to eat a hot dog.’ Journalists hypothesised whether this was Cameron’s attempt to avoid a Miliband situation, since the bacon sandwich mess had only occurred a year prior. 

The incident fuelled a belief that Cameron was out of touch with the British public. The knife and fork appeared affirmative of Cameron’s snobbishness, a product of his upper-class upbringing. He was quickly branded as ‘posh,’ and his Eton education and ancestry – being a descendent of King William IV – offered few defences from such labels. 

Politicians have always played with their food. A messy bacon sandwich may appear like a harmless, endearing incident, but the way a politician eats has become one of the windows into their personality and lifestyle choices – an exclusive peek into the person they are outside of politics. It lets the phrase ‘you are what you eat’ ring with a deeper truth, turning food as a means of constructing persona and identity. 

Were Nickelback really that bad?

Chloe Whitehead
-
0
Were Nickelback really that bad?

Nickelback have gained a reputation as one of the worst and most uninspired musical acts of all time, with particular criticism usually landing in the lap of leading man Chad Kroeger. And whilst there is almost certainly a lot of legitimate criticism amongst it all, bandwagons are easy to latch onto – perhaps suggesting we need to re-evaluate this much maligned band. 

‘Rockstar’ and ‘How You Remind Me’ are, admittedly, the only two Nickelback songs I know. The only other thing I know about them is that the meme of their lead singer Chad Kroeger holding up a photograph in the music video to the song of the same name is a decent one. You may, therefore, question my motives and/or qualifications for writing about them; they’re clearly not my all-time favourite band. But what I do know for certain is this: the two Nickelback songs I do remember are – in my view – absolute bangers. 

Formed in Canada in 1995, Nickelback have since been declared by the 2013 readers of Rolling Stone magazine the 2nd worst band of the 90s. Ouch. There have obviously been more bitter, biting criticisms levelled against the group, one of the most famous being Mark Zuckerberg’s AI system Jarvis (voiced by Morgan Freeman to make the insult even sassier) declaring independently that there are no good Nickelback songs.

But the stats don’t lie: they have in fact sold more than 50 million albums worldwide, and are one of the most commercially successful Canadian rock bands ever. Yet that’s the sticking point- they are ‘commercially successful’, not so much revered in the public imagination. Despite millions of people clearly buying their music, posterity has not favoured them kindly, supposedly because their songs are formulaic, shallow and – in essence – naff. Historically though, music thrives on formula for success, from the intricate baroque masterpieces of the 17thcentury to the previous century’s 12 bar blues. AC/DC have, like Nickelback and numerous other bands, been criticised for their songs relying on largely one chord, and of concerning mainly alcohol, sex and drugs. But isn’t that just rock ‘n’ roll? Why, in that case, do Nickelback not qualify as a respected rock band?

In my view, they should. Until conducting research for this article I hadn’t realised just how popular they were in the early Noughties, and for me that should be recognised alongside any (admittedly) hilarious criticism they receive. To hate a musical act that everyone else hates is unifying, bringing together a divided world. Harmonising hatred: understandable but slightly unfair. To me, their downfall in the public imagination is an unfortunate product of their timing; after bands like Nirvana, who skyrocketed to fame in the 90s and expressed for the first time in decades the frustrated grunge of Western youth, they seemed shallow and plastically commercial like the manufactured groups of the talent show age. They aren’t authentic, and seeing as bands like AC/DC have already championed the virtues of rockstar debauchery, they’re only singing the same old tune. Popular culture values uncovering the unique, unusual band with only 10 Spotify subscribers. That’s what’s cool, not the mainstream. 

There is no chance that Nickelback, as influential in the charts as they once briefly were, much impacted guitar music. Only last weekend rock band Foo Fighters headlined, with huge success, the Leeds/Reading festival. Guitar music is disappearing because it is no longer perceived to express the raw emotion and issue of the day. It has been relegated to a continuum stretching from Ben Howard’s chill revision tunes to Metallica’s “embarrassing dad” rock. Millions still love and listen to it to access the spirit of a bygone era, but the genre must work harder to express the essence of this one.

Nickelback don’t deserve the volume of criticism they receive; many musical acts are becoming increasingly naff and uninspiring, using the same five synth notes and squeaky “drop” to manufacture a chart hit. I am prepared to die on the hill of ‘Rockstar’ and ‘How You Remind Me’ being corny but loveable tunes; not really rock ‘n’ roll, but good all the same. Good enough for bops anyway.

1...668669670...2,599Page 669 of 2,599

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 Jamie Ashley