Latest news with #OxfordUnion
The Spinoff
26-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Spinoff
Review: Ryan Bridge's hectic new live morning show
Tara Ward watches the first episode of new digital news show Herald Now. 'The journalists are already sick of me,' Ryan Bridge announced in the opening moments of Herald Now, NZ Herald's new digital news show that premiered this morning. The broadcaster explained that he'd been standing in the middle of the NZME newsroom all week, rehearsing to launch the weekday show that promises ' the news you need to know now '. But this time, not only was Bridge standing in the newsroom, he was also streaming live on both YouTube and and at 7am he was ready to kickstart the morning's first news bulletin. 'You've probably heard Niva's voice before, but she's a looker too,' Bridge said of Niva Retimanu, who read the news from the Newstalk ZB studio. Back in the newsroom, Bridge began with 'Bridge does the business', while behind him, journalists darted around as they hustled the morning headlines. While Bridge rattled off the latest OCR figures, my frazzled early-morning brain did business of its own by wondering what was really hiding inside the NZME newsroom fridge. An interview about benefit sanctions was quickly followed by an appearance from soon-to-be-deputy-prime-minister David Seymour, who seemed to have all day to lean on the desk and tell us how stink the country is right now. In contrast, Bridge, having already hosted Newstalk ZB's Early Edition at 5am this morning, was fast and full of hand-waving energy. He pressed Seymour about spending $20 million a year on the Regulatory Standards Bill, to which Seymour rambled about Nick Smith 'getting away scot free' about earthquake regulations, or something. Bridge had lots of paper on his desk and lots of things to discuss, including Seymour's upcoming debate at the Oxford Union. Seymour explained he would speak against the argument that 'no one can be illegal on stolen land'. Bridge brought up David Lange's iconic 'I can smell the uranium' Oxford Union one-liner back in 1985 – would Seymour think of some jokes ahead of time? 'Sometimes the best jokes just happen,' Seymour said. Speaking of jokes: on to the bleak state of our public health system. Journalist Michael Morrah stopped in to discuss his exclusive story about the pressures on Middlemore Hospital last winter, when more than 1,500 patients were treated in corridors during a 36-day period. Hospitals are overloaded and understaffed, Morrah confirmed, sharing heartbreaking comments from stressed medical professionals in the first of his three-part series about the desperate condition of the system. It was an important issue, but Bridge didn't take it up with Nicola Willis, whose interview followed Morrah's. Willis stood in for prime minister Christopher Luxon, who was suffering from a winter virus, and Bridge questioned her about changes to KiwiSaver. 'We're worse off overall,' he argued, to which Willis suggested people should just look at the retirement website. Bridge concluded the interview by asking if Willis was wearing the same blue dress she wore on Budget Day. 'If you are, go for it girl,' he said. 'The 1950s called, and they want their line of questioning back,' Willis replied, while I wanted to put my head deep inside that NZME staff fridge. After the 7.30am news, Bridge was also searching for answers. 'I enjoy a nice dress as much as your next gay man,' he began. 'Should I have asked about it? Probably not.' No matter, here's Heather with the weather, and a budget review with business entrepreneur Carmen Vicelich, who was forced to Zoom in from the Koru Lounge shower rooms due to the lack of privacy. 'We need some private rooms so we can do business,' she complained. It was Middlemore Hospital all over again, except with a 20% government tax break for new machinery purchases. At 7.56am, after a frenetic hour of interviews, Bridge took what seemed to be his first breath of the morning during the sports round-up. Later, after more ads selling me the wet weather gear that All Black Scott Barrett wears when he milks the cows, Dame Julie Christie and Matt Heath popped by for a Monday morning panel and Christie dropped a Costco bombshell: you have to buy 48 rolls of toilet paper at once. While I reeled from this astonishing revelation, Bridge discussed the supermarket duopoly with a supermarket duopoly expert and read out the morning's viewer feedback. Rob was glad there was now something 'substantial' to watch in the morning, while Philip asked 'how do I pause and rewind please?' Viewer Alan's attention was elsewhere: 'What is annoying for me is the background activity.' 'Perhaps you guys could just all go away?' Bridge turned and joked to his colleagues, who grinned and waved. They're busy, Bridge assured Alan, but maybe David Seymour was right. Between the Herald Now's toilet paper chitchat, shower room revelations and that mysterious newsroom fridge, sometimes the best jokes do just happen.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oxford Union debating society rejects proposal to fly LGBTQ+ pride flag
An historic Oxford debating society committee has rejected a proposal to fly the LGBTQ+ flag for Pride Month every year. The Oxford Union standing committee voted against the reinstatement of a policy to fly the Pride Flag during the month of June, which has existed for the past five years. After the provision was mistakenly removed during a rules update, the Union decided to bring it through formal channels to allow open debate and transparency. READ MORE: Oxford: Woman sexually assaulted on top deck of bus The motion brought to the standing committee to reinstate the rule with additional measures, such as giving the president discretion to suspend the requirement during periods of national mourning, was rejected. Stay connected to the heart of Oxford for less! 🚨 Our flash sale is ON: get trusted local news for just £5 for 5 months or 40 per cent off an annual subscription. Don't miss out — subscribe now! 🗞️👇 — Oxford Mail (@TheOxfordMail) April 29, 2025 The meeting included a secret ballot on May 5, in which four members voted for the proposal and seven voted against, meaning it did not pass. Opponents said that while they support the inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community, the rule may set a precedent, opening a "Pandora's Box" of demands for other flags to be flown. READ MORE: Train delays between Bicester and Thame due to 'obstruction' Anita Okunde, president of the Oxford Union, said in a statement: "Our society is better for the many backgrounds that make up our membership, and I hope we are able to resolve this in a democratic manner with a fair outcome for all." It was discussed whether codifying the rule would make a substantive difference to a practice which the president already has the power to enact. The issue will now be brought before the house in a Private Business Motion to allow all members of the society to vote if they attend the debate, in line with the Union's democratic processes.
Telegraph
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Britain's ‘wokeist' university has finally seen sense
Two months ago, Oxford University sent out a newsletter to faculties explaining why the introduction of gender-neutral degree ceremonies was 'necessary'. You may remember reading about the proposed move at the time, your head lolling forward as you laboured your way through whiny phrases about the pernicious effects of 'gendered language', 'better representation for those who identify as non-binary', and how by creating 'a single text for each ceremony' and successfully bastardising an 800-year-old script, Latin would finally become 'inclusive Latin' (and Oxford a global laughing stock). That the university would vote 'yes' to replacing offensive addresses such as 'domini' and 'magistri' with the neutered 'vos' – 'yes' to scouring a 12th-century tradition free of toxicity – was a given, and last month, Oxford duly opted to remove masculine and feminine Latin words from some ceremonies. So far, so predictable. What to make, then, of the extraordinary (partial) U-turn reported on Sunday? Of Oxford's decision to backtrack and 'amend those changes', so that 'some gendered words' will be retained? Add to this Oxford Union's rejection of calls to reinstate the mandatory flying of the LGBT flag every Pride month (after the order was mysteriously removed from the committee's rule book), and we have to ask ourselves: has Britain's 'wokeist' university decided to dial it down? Although Oxford and Cambridge have wrestled over the dubious honour of that title for the past five years – with think tanks such as Civitas basing their rankings on the universities' endorsement of 'trigger warnings, white privilege and anti-racism' alongside other factors such as free speech disputes – controversies last year seemed to have put Oxford in pole position, at least in terms of public perception. There were the numerous diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives: the targeting of freshers with ' unconscious bias training ', and let's not forget the plan to vet candidates for the chancellor position, which was widely criticised as an attempt to exclude a white male politician. All of this followed years of no-platforming and debating skirmishes. As a man, my esteemed colleague, Tim Stanley, was not allowed to make the pro-life case for abortion at a Christ Church college debate in 2014 – or indeed present any view whatsoever (too many 'security and welfare issues'). That same year, you may recall that the gender-critical 'thought criminal' Dr Kathleen Stock was forced to temporarily halt her much-contested Union appearance, after a trans activist glued themself to the floor of the debating chamber. So what on earth could have prompted this sea change? Has someone contaminated the air over there with common sense? According to Oxford, the decision to maintain the gendered words in their ceremonies came because 'they form part of the tradition handed down to us and they connote the respect shown by University Officers to graduands in the ceremony'. Which is, I'm afraid, a giant fib. You don't suddenly, from one month to the next, develop a reverence for 'tradition', or indeed decide that what was offensive a few weeks ago is now the hallmark of 'respect'. The LGBT flag rejection is, admittedly, a little more complex. The primary issue, Union committee members believe, is that flying any kind of a flag could be seen as ' opening the floodgates '. Which is true. The view was also put forward that 'everyone in the standing committee supports the LGBTQIA+ community regardless of the flag being on display', which I would hope is also true. But was that not always the case? I can't imagine that this is about America and Oxford fearing for its funding – not unless they're already looking ahead to a Reform rule. No, what seems more likely in this case and (to a lesser degree) that of the LGBT flag that will no longer be flown, is that these intrepid, inclusion-fighting progressives have seen which way the wind is blowing and shouted, en masse: 'Ready about!' We should be happy, of course. Or at the very least relieved. But I, for one, feel irritated – borderline angry. Because whilst I always suspected that very little of this stuff was heartfelt (certainly on an institutional level), screeching U-turns reveal almost all of it to have been affectation – about running with the herd rather than any core belief system. And as with Starmer on Monday, when he used the kind of rhetoric on immigration that would have had him cancelled four years ago, there is something deeply dispiriting about witnessing that volte-face. So maybe it's that. Or maybe, in the case of Oxford, it's because you would have hoped that the smartest people in the world would have had better sense from the start.
Times
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Times
Oxford Union rejects calls to fly the LGBT flag for Pride month
The Oxford Union has rejected a proposal to reinstate the mandatory flying of the LGBT flag every Pride month. Anita Okunde, the union's president, raised the motion after the order to fly the flag in June was removed without explanation from the student committee book, according to reports. The order insisted union presidents should 'fly an LGBT flag clearly and visibly from the courtyard throughout June every year'. Okunde's request to reinstate the mandatory flag order was rejected by a vote of seven to four in a secret ballot on May 5, which was first reported by Cherwell, the student newspaper., Opponents expressed concern about 'opening the floodgate' for other flags. • From polysexual to genderqueer: where did all the flags come from? Samy
Telegraph
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Oxford Union rejects call to fly LGBT flag during Pride month
The Oxford Union has rejected calls to reinstate the mandatory flying of the LGBT flag every Pride month. Anita Okunde, the president of the union, made the request after an order requiring the flag to be raised in June was mysteriously removed from the student-run standing committee's rule book. The order would make it compulsory for 'every union president to fly an LGBT flag clearly and visibly from the courtyard throughout June every year'. It would also give the president the discretion to waive the requirement 'in the event of the death of the Sovereign, or at such other time when public buildings fly their flags at half mast'. In minutes of the meeting, seen by The Telegraph, Ms Okunde claimed it was not 'a new standing order change' and that it had been mysteriously removed from the committee's rule book. But her motion was rejected by a vote of seven to four in a secret ballot on May 5, with critics fearing it would open a 'Pandora's box' of demands for other flags to be flown. In a meeting at which opposition voices were cautious not to be cancelled, Samy Medjdoub, the third elected member of the committee from Keble College, said that by passing the motion any other individual may make the same request for any other cause and described the scenario as 'opening the floodgates'. He added that by 'expressing his belief that everyone in the standing committee supports the LGBTQIA+ community regardless of the flag being on display, the motion should not be ratified'. Ms Okunde argued that it had been part of the rules and standing orders for a significant number of years, and that there were not any Pandora's boxes stemming from the order. She added she had 'never heard of anybody being upset or requesting another specific flag to be flown to her knowledge'. A secret ballot was suggested in a bid to keep the motion centred on principle and separate from the committee's individual views on LGBT representation. The ruling has ignited a fierce online backlash from students, with one writing that the change was 'confirmation that the union is as bad as everyone thinks it is'. Another said: 'To be fair, at least it keeps the LGBTQ+ community safe by giving a warning as to where they aren't welcome. 'If the union wants to make it clearer, it could always vote on whether to have a sign reading: 'Bigots within beware.'' But the deletion of the original order has never been explained. Removal or changes to the rules and standing orders are meant to be discussed, with students being notified. Ms Okunde, who has been a member of the committee five times, said that she did not recall a discussion on the matter and the committee admitted it had found no explanation in past minutes as to why the order was removed. Committee members speculated that it might have been accidentally removed in the past, along with other orders. Moosa Harraj, the president-elect who will take over in the autumn term, deemed the unexplained disappearance as 'crazy' and ordered an inquiry into its removal. Ms Okunde announced that, despite the vote, she would 'regardless fly the flag in her term '. She became the union's president in December following months of infighting after a 'sinister' Israel-Palestine debate on the motion 'This house believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide', which passed by 278 votes to 59. The Telegraph approached Oxford Union and Ms Okunde for comment.
