The "Unique" Issue

Orbital Board, 22/23

Editor-in-chief: Madelaine Gray

Deputy EIC: Hannah Armour

Senior News Editor: Courtney Bridges

Associate News Editor: Devesh Sood

Senior Opinion Editor: Emma Holly

Associate Opinion Editor: Jethro Robathon

Senior Culture Editor: Olivia Taylor

Associate Culture Editor: Shannon Gray

Senior Lifestyle Editor: Beth McCowen

Associate Lifestyle Editor: Millie Draper

Senior Sports Editor: Peter Vigh

Creative Writing Coordinator: Ellie Pritchard

Head Illustrator/Cover Design: Tabitha Turner

My father and I have a matching gripe with the way that people use the word “unique”. Something cannot be “very” or “quite” unique –uniqueness is a black-and-white state, you either are or you aren’t.

Blah blah, language evolves, blah blah, secondary meanings. I’m pretty stubborn in general, but this is in fact one of the few linguistic hills that I will die on.

If you spot any adverbed usages of the word “unique” in this issue, please point them out to me.

Onto the less sardonic – I’m thrilled to present our fourth (fourth!) issue of the academic year. Since we last printed, we’ve been Highly Commended in the Student Publication Association London Awards, a testament to the hard work of the whole team. We might be a small magazine, but in the words of the judges:

“The Orbital offers well-written, varied opinion pieces across a wide range of interesting perspectives. Here students really have their say, presenting their ideas to others in an approachable, readable way.”

Thank you to everyone who has written for The Orbital this year, but also to every single person who has picked up a copy, even to skim through. The views expressed within this magazine are not representative of Royal Holloway, University of London, or Royal Holloway Student's Union, or any author/editor except the individual who wrote the particular article.

Jethro Robathon Emma Holly Chloe Hayler Olivia Taylor

Taylor Emilie Williams

THEMAILISIN

Readers’ Letters, Tips, Comments

LOVED the Issue Three cover!

- Anonymous

Ellie's creative writing pieces are great, love the freeform style

- Anonymous

No crossword in Issue Three :(

- Anonymous

You do realise you've been spelling "Davison" wrong since Issue One, don't you?

- Will

(Editor's Note: We did, in fact, not realise. Thanks for pointing this out to us)

Visit Page 26 for "Dear Davison", our resident advice guru and agony aunt.

Want to get in contact?

WE HAVE AN ANONYMOUS CONTACT FORM AVAILABLE AT LINKTR.EE/ORBITALMAGAZINE

ALTERNATIVELY, YOU CAN EMAIL US EDITOR.ORBITAL@ROYALHOLLOWAY.SU OR MESSAGE ANY OF OUR SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS

Politics in Sport:

The Exception or the Rule?

Courtney Bridges

SENIOR NEWS EDITOR

TheCivil Rights movement, Black Lives Matter (BLM), LGBTQ+, transgender rights, gender, and free school meals – all areas of politics brought into sport. From displays of unity in the form of physical actions such as ‘taking the knee’ before a match, to celebrating Pride with rainbow banners on the noses of F1 cars during races in Azerbaijan, Canada, and the British Grand Prix (with select few also adopting similar displays on helmets for numerous campaigns/ movements), the list goes on.

It is often asked whether politics should at all be brought into sport. But the question often overlooked is whether politics in sport is unique? Because arguably, ‘all athletic endeavour is grounded in social context’.

The involvement of politics in sport has been evident for as long as contentious. Yet, it is only with recent events that this ‘issue’ has once again been brought to the forefront of debate.

This is especially the case for ‘taking the knee’ in what some may argue to be its inspiration taken from previous Civil Rights symbolism in the ‘Black Power Salute’ by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics. President Lyndon B. Johnson, embarrassed, didn’t honour the athletes for their achievements. Similarly, President Donald

Trump ‘called off’ the Eagles visit to the Whitehouse (despite the players fans to ‘shun’ the visit regardless) after their 2019 National Football League protests, where players like Malcom Jenkins raised their fists against oppression. But, despite such evidence, sport has continued to be a valued, and assumed vacuum exempt from the outside world. Today though, as always, this is far from the truth.

Understandably, viewers look to sport as an ‘escapism’ from the tolls of day-to-day life. Though, we only have to consider social media’s origins, in say Facebook’s initial creation born out of desires to keep people connected to profiles becoming ‘platforms’ for creators, celebrities, and influencers alike, to share messages in which they believe in and support, to also see the relevance for politics in sport.

Sport too then, is a ‘platform’, not a ‘prop'.

This discussion is one that can lead us to many conversations regarding freedom of expression and freedom of speech. For, as Kini emphasises; fans broadcasters, coaches, athletes and ‘their voices, that usually advocate for inclusion of minorities and underrepresented groups in sport need to be allowed expression’.

However, the purpose of this article is this: to highlight that politics is not new, will likely never disappear from, and thus is not as much of a unique matter in sport as media reports like to exaggerate.

Perhaps selective media spotlighting has elevated this view when politics

is brought into sport – narrating it to be more of a scandal than the norm, the exception rather than the rule. Yet we must remember what is at the very heart of sport: collaboration and competition. In this respect, we may say that the fundamentals shared between two very distinct sub-sections of society are not that different after all.

Malik explains that Japanese martial arts are ‘celebrated as a means of spirit development and social ordering’ and cricket started as an ‘instrument through which Victorians sought to teach the ruling class to rule’ and ‘plebs to obey’ – just two of many historical cases that could be highlighted.

Hence, the relationship between sport and politics is much more connected than given credit for. The grounding of sport within our social setting is what ‘imbues sport with much of its meaning’. Without it, we likely wouldn’t see sport’s celebration off the field/pitch/track etc, in film, music, and TV. Without it, we wouldn’t have great cinema like Billy Eliot, team chants, or eagerly anticipated documentaries like Drive to Survive.

There is politics in sport. Whether this concerns discussions of the ethics of horse racing, the battle between Principles in the F1 paddock, or a manager’s decision on the starting line-up. It is natural. Inevitable even. So then, why should it be viewed as such a unique or surprising phenomena when room is made for politics beyond the locker room? Perhaps it should not.

Shrewd Politics and Good Humour

Betty Boothroyd, first female Speaker of the House, 1929-2023

Betty Boothroyd, the first female Speaker of the House, died on the 26th February at the age of 93.

Known for her good-humoured style, her warmth, and her wit, Boothroyd acquired international fame during her term as Speaker. She remained true to her working-class northern roots and attached herself to those issues about which she was most passionate. In a statement announcing her death, Speaker Lindsay Hoyle said that Betty Boothroyd “broke that glass ceiling with panache,” calling her a “sharp, witty and formidable

woman,” adding that she had a no-nonsense style “but any reprimands she did issue were done with good humour and charm.”

Born in Dewsbury, Yorkshire in 1929, Boothroyd was state-educated and spent six years working as a dancer as part of the Tiller Girls troupe after leaving school early. When a foot injury brought her show business days to an end, she chose to enter the world of adult politics, working first as a secretary to Barbara Castle (a Labour MP), before travelling to the US to work as a legislative assistant for an

American Congressman.

Acclimatised to local politics from a young age, it was Boothroyd’s mother who took Betty to Labour meetings in the town halls of Leeds or Huddersfield. Boothroyd joined the Labour League of Youth at 16 – by the time that the Attlee government fell in 1951, she was a member of its national committee.

After returning to the UK, Boothroyd contested several Commons seats from the late 1950s to the early 1970s, before being elected an MP in the 1973 by-election of West Bromwich. Boothroyd immediately made

Photo reproduced under the Creative Commons license 3.0, via the Parliament Archives

waves when her maiden speech fiercely criticised the Conservative government of the time for its failures to support the “ordinary working people” who she claimed to speak for, contrary to the generally accepted bland declaratives for a first-time MP.

When Boothroyd was named Speaker in 1992, there were just 60 women in the 651-member House of Commons. Her Speaker election was the first contested in over 40 years, and the first in over a century and a half to result in a Speaker from the opposition party – and, of course, the first ever to elect a female Speaker.

In short, she succeeded against pretty incredible odds.

As the first female to hold the office, there was debate as to whether Boothroyd should wear the traditional Speaker’s Wig – she ultimately chose not to, stating that all future Speakers should be free to make their own choice too. None since have chosen to do so.

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, pointed out that when Boothroyd was elected, there was no outfit for a female Speaker, so she had to design it herself. This may sound trivial to mention, but in some ways, it could be said that this was emblematic of her role as Speaker; carving out the path for those who came after her, and placing ever-growing cracks in that elusive glass ceiling.

It was Boothroyd’s no-nonsense corralling of the unruly house that transformed Prime Minister’s Questions into the television spectacle that it is today. While the comparisons of her behaviour to a school headteacher could be seen as sexist by today’s standards, it is true that she certainly held her own in the male-dominated chamber through a mixture of good humour (badly stifling a yawn to

signal when an MP was reaching the end of their time) and firm handling (calls of “Order, order!” and a definitive “Time’s Up!” that became her catchphrase).

After her resignation from the Speakership in 2001, Boothroyd took her seat as a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, and was honoured with many roles and degrees, but her personal interest lay mainly in her role as chancellor of the Open University due to its egalitarian mission for adult higher education.

Boothroyd was not a radical – she sat on the right wing of Labour, deploring the party’s shift to the left after electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader, and was a stickler for tradition and protocol in Commons despite the ground-breaking nature of her appointment. She struck down a possible change to allow female MPs to breastfeed in the Commons, and opposed changes to parliamentary hours that have since been implemented. She complained in both public and private about the growing incidence of politicians speaking first to journalists before the Commons when making important announcements that occurred throughout her term. Nor was she a backroom, greasy-pole-climbing politician – she won support and success through hard work and personal charisma, despite her unconventional background and unprecedented gender.

In many ways, it makes sense that the first female Speaker was unmarried and childless. Boothroyd allegedly received many marriage proposals throughout her life, with at least three serious ones, but none came at the right time. She has been quoted as applauding female MPs who balanced both a family and their careers, and claimed

that she did not believe that she would've managed to do the same. Given how well she handled the schoolground environment of the Commons, however, it's possible that she may have been more capable than she gave herself credit for.

As Harriet Harman, Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham said, “There may well be another woman speaker, but there will never be another Betty Boothroyd.” Boothroyd made an indelible impression on British politics, and her unique tenure as Speaker will continue to inspire generations of women, as well as those who enter the political sphere from less-than-conventional backgrounds. Those who knew her remember her great sense of humour, her kindness, and her ability to have fun, despite the pomp and circumstance of her position. I think we can all take lessons from these tales.

Thoughts on being an individual.

Sofia Bajerova

Iremembergrowing up surrounded by quotes such as, “be yourself, because an original is worth more than a copy.” I was told repeatedly to “just go out there and be yourself” – of course, I hadn’t quite figured that out yet. Perhaps I still haven’t. We are encouraged to become individuals, distinct by definition. In some ways, this perfectly describes our condition, with different personalities, passions and goals. But to be different and to be distinct begs the question - from what? There has to be a point of comparison. In order to be sure that we are individual, there must be other individuals from whom we can ascertain our differences. So then, we are raised by people, to become our own person, which we then verify by comparing ourselves to other people. We create ourselves, through our experiences of others, those we love and hate, the products of our surroundings, and our opinions of them.

Resultingly, we set the parameters within which we can be our own individuals. There is a script, and although it is ever-changing, it is largely followed. The idea of the individual, then, is constantly at battle with its own definition. For instance, there is such a thing as being too different in today’s society. Arguably, what I should have been told growing up was “just go out there and be yourself, so long as it stays within the boundaries.” Essentially, be creative, but colour within the lines.

So what happens to those that have followed the task to the letter? They are their own person and by comparison to most others, they are different. I think we know the trajectory of that story all too well: often a toss-up between fetishisation, idolisation, ‘banterous’ ridicule in the spotlight and marginalisation. What about those we don’t accept as individuals? Those we lump into groups of nationalities, ethnicities and entire continents. Although, we seem to have capacity enough to remember the individuality of those within our own groups. When it comes to those who don’t appear the same or have unrelatable experiences, it suddenly seems to become almost impossible for people to recognise the individual. We would probably be hard pushed to find someone who has not witnessed, or themselves been a victim of a situation where they have been mistaken for the other man, woman, person of colour or different sexual orientation in the room. The brutal reality of being reduced to a singular aspect of identity.

Is it time that we actually stuck by what we tell our children? How simple really is this task when we are constantly developing the boundaries of the boxes in which we put ourselves? Just recently we publicly questioned what it means to be a woman, seemingly baffled by the intersection of biology and society. I’ve referred to these ideas as boxes as if they are containers for our made up criteria, a casket for the parts of us that do not fit. The idea of boxes provides comfort, a series of lines or sides our minds can understand. A simple activity

that many of us could do before we could walk - does the shape fit? We know that these containers change shape and they regularly do as we push for new boundaries.

Nevertheless, we contribute to their existence, slowly expanding the lines within which our children can colour but never removing them entirely. Perhaps our minds cannot comprehend that. Perhaps we fear it. I have sat awake considering the question of what being a woman means to me. I realise the luxury of never having to think too much about what I am and what I am not, of fitting rather nicely within the lines drawn out for me. Albeit, that’s not to say that I don’t feel the claustrophobia setting in.

It seems we would have to accept what happens when we allow for things that we cannot yet comprehend and don’t try to distil everything down to the games of shape sorters and hammer benches that we play in society. Can we do it?

Should we?

Harry Stone

STAFF WRITER

Foranyone who cherishes the principles of individual rights and personal agency, right wing ‘populism’ is the single largest threat in our current political landscape. The combination of reactionary policy proposals, masked under a desire to protect free speech, gives progressives a very important question: how do we protect fundamental rights, and prevent such forces from dominating global discourse?

For many, including myself, the solution revolves around utilising popular rhetoric which resonates with everyday voters, alongside policy measures emphasising human rights, and economic security. This does not mean we should embrace populism ourselves; history should teach us that majoritarian politics creates further class barriers and disenfranchises already disadvantaged minority groups. On the other hand, progressive and liberal politics must learn to levy critique away from the general population, particularly swing voters. Unfortunately, I have too often seen mainstream outlets with left leanings, fail on this latter point. Framing particular voting demographics negatively has become a popular tool of almost all modern media. The neoliberal economic framework most have accepted as ‘human nature’, alongside our current social media habits, have curated a culture of mistrust in these traditional ‘authoritative’ forms of news.

The faux populism of Christian conservatives in Europe and the Americas did not simply arise due

to bigotry alone, although ignoring this factor is also harmful when seeking to combat far right politics. Economic insecurity, a lack of trust in establishment figures, and the centralisation of power have allowed opportunistic figures to build powerful coalitions. Despite the everyman having little in common with an extremist, hate is most powerful when combined with fair criticism. Trump’s promises to renegotiate NAFTA and the TPP, and the promises not to outsource more jobs came at a time of increasing uncertainty for millions of Americans, and were crucial in attracting midwestern swing voters. Whilst these pledges seem disingenuous, given the history of racism, classism and misogyny which tarnished Trump’s business career, the lacklustre coverage by mainstream outlets gave right wing populism an ample window to rear its ugly head. We know rhetoric is a powerful tool in media, not just on the right; Blair and Obama both capitalised on unpopular incumbent parties, a desire for change and a ‘campaign populism’ which did not necessarily reflect their governing records.

Counter-extremists often cite the importance of recognising coherent points, alongside admonishing the incoherent during ‘political conversions’. Yet, media often ignores this, and castigates large swathes of respective populations as hateful. This has allowed far right charlatans much more room in arguing to their newly attracted supporters that they were right in mistrusting the establishment. The advice of counter-extremists is essential in the fight against the far-right; it is outreach, empathy and critical thinking which must be at the core of responding to the indoctrinated. It is naïve to believe you will reach

everyone, but even if a small fraction of more ‘moderate’ supporters of a particularly bigoted figure can understand your position, it is more likely they will themselves reach out to family or friends who are deeper into the rabbit hole.

Since the 2010’s, far right radicals have adopted an aesthetically anti-establishment style of rhetoric on key social issues. Ranging from opposition to COVID vaccines to viewing LGBTQ+ rights as key to a ‘new world order’, the far right has been highly successful in mobilising working class voters who have felt left out by globalisation. Yet, instead of refuting the premise that anything left of centre is establishmentarian, many liberals in media and government have embraced the notion, when just ten years prior, it would have seemed outlandish. Moving forward, I see it as an imperative for moderate voices within progressive and leftist movements to take on board the sensible de-radicalisation techniques set out by counter-extremists, as well as ensuring that future policy proposals will be economically beneficial to working class voters. The left must be united in rejecting these reactionary views toward social issues, and focus on an economic and social agenda which takes into consideration the very intersectional nature in which world politics is structured.

must control the narrative":

The failure of liberal media to counter right wing extremism in the west.

Race, Language, and Labels.

‘Positive’ Discrimination: Jethro Robathon

ASSOCIATE OPINION EDITOR

‘… “Reverse discrimination”, which translates to “Keep those Negroes running – but in their same old place”.’

– Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man

BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnics). POC and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of colour). Catch-all, pre-packaged tags ready to slap on those boxes we call ‘people’, when we feel so inclined. Establishment guarantee included, free of charge. My gripe with race terminology has long been one of passive resistance yet complicit subscription. This is my guilty confession; more so, this is a personal attempt to unravel the netting of politically correct and functionally useless labels which colour (pun intended) our ever-growing vocabulary of racial identification.

A few mandatory disclaimers before I let loose. Conversations about ‘race’ are typically sensitive and often fraught with triggers. This article does not intend to offend nor absolve, simply observe. Conversations about ‘race’ are, also, largely cyclical and tend to converge towards a spiraling resolution of mutual disagreement and overall paralysis.

A final disclaimer. Promise. I am mixed-race, half-English and half-Indo Caribbean, although this specificity does not really matter (which is somewhat the problem I am alluding to). I don’t personally identify as one who is notably ethnically ‘diverse’; my ethnic roots manifest as, at best, a ticket to inclusivity schemes and a tick on a

census form. This is not me disowning my racial heritage but simply a factual recognition of who I am as a person and how I have been raised.

What follows is a personal vendetta I have long held, privately, against workplace diversity programmes and generalized race terminology. A vendetta which has been aroused to a point of needing to write about it, thanks to re-visiting the phrase ‘reverse/positive discrimination’ when reading a bit of Ralph Ellison (no prizes for guessing my degree then) and, more unexpectantly, being confronted with racially-motivated political correctness after watching new rom-com You People (Netflix). The so-called ‘ethnic diversity’ which I, apparently, represent leads me into the actual subject of this article: the prevalence of so-called ‘inclusivity schemes’ and its accompanying race terminology. Specifically, the lifeless acronyms so popular in political lexicon, such as ‘BAME’ or ‘BIPOC’ (more American), and, more recently, a shift to more inclusive legal phraseology where ‘Ethnic Minority’ and ‘Global Majority’ are fan favourites. These are labels that, in essence, allude to an overall sense of being ‘not white’. Or to put it more bluntly, of otherness and alienation. Ironically, in an attempt to structure race discourse in an apparently inclusive way, instead we are provided a quasi-confirmation of our differences.

Race terminology is a problem that is inherently paradoxical: it captures and describes categories of ‘race’ which do not exist (I refer to the essential truth of ‘race’ being a social construct), yet are no less necessary in documenting racial discrimination, which very much does exist. Therefore, pre-packaged labels of non-whiteness, be it ‘BAME’ or

even ‘Global Majority’, serve to only further racial segregation, to deepen social divides between racial borders. This runs alongside the oft overlooked fact that White ethnic minorities tend to be sidelined, although census forms now include options for ‘Gypsy’, ‘Roma’ and ‘Traveler of Irish Heritage Groups’. These are ethnicities who also face marginalization and social disadvantages yet tend to fall to the wayside in racial discourses.

The branding of inclusivity schemes often is accompanied by this kind of exclusive terminology, typically entry-level vacancies targeted at ‘ethnic minority candidates’, or ‘BAME and other minority individuals’, alongside the intersectional appeals to ‘low income households’, or ‘members part of the LGBTQ+ community’. Now, it is undeniably a good thing to bolster workplace diversity and further efforts in social equity. But, and this is an emphatic ‘but’, these schemes are often run at the expense of excluding those who do not sufficiently fit within the social criteria, those who do not tick enough boxes.

As someone who has personally benefited from such schemes, at the (admittedly, cheap) cost of my moral conscience, it is entirely baffling how the push for employment inclusivity is operated under by means of explicit exclusivity. It is a juxtaposition which is embodied in the championing of terms such as ‘BAME’ or ‘BIPOC’. Being a benefactor of inclusivity schemes, as good as it may look on my CV or for career development, leaves a sour taste behind as the employment position bears the implicit, seldom mentioned truth that your selection was due to your skin colour, or financial difficulties, or sex-

ual orientation, or anything else rather than your merit. Your own unique individuality is left to the wayside. A sweeping generalization loosely applicable on account of your ethnicity instead slots into place, your key defining trait. In a movement geared towards diversifying the workforce, we instead exclude both those who fail to meet the politically-correct requisites (i.e. White individuals, or I suppose ‘ethnic majority’ candidates in the UK) but also the scheme benefactor themselves.

There is one deeper, more insidious implication here. These are schemes which legally can be considered examples of ‘positive action’, although I believe this is merely the polite cousin to ‘positive discrimination’, with the two often being interchangeable outside of legal contexts. These phrases, respectively, refer to actions carried out to encourage diversity in candidates for a vacancy and the intentional favour paid to diverse candidates. ‘Positive action’ is lawful while ‘positive discrimination’ is illegal. Creative Access, a website which hosts a myriad of ‘positive action’ and inclusivity schemes for entry-level positions in the creative industries, were kind enough to inform my girlfriend she did not meet the necessary criteria to make an account on their site. How inclusive!

Diversity schemes ostensibly operate as agents of ‘positive action’ given that they tend to use a model of anonymous submission (thereby bypassing any accusation of ‘intentional’ favour) yet there remains the fact that, under the banner of equity, entire swathes of non-minority employees are looked over. Or, in my girlfriend’s case, explicitly blocked off. In an echo of Ellison’s criticisms against his ‘reverse discrimination’, these modern diversity schemes are institutionally misaligned and serve not to improve social equity, but

rather to create a visual impression of workplace diversity that fails to tackle the root of the issue. That is, of course, the concept of ‘race’. So, how do we move forward from here? This is a question which requires addressing the elephant in the room: race terminology itself.

I am personally a proponent of a kind of mindful antipathy. By this I mean allowing for the kind of dismissal of significance an individual’s skin colour may play in our personal biases; no means an easy feat but certainly possible, evidenced in the fact that infants display a distinct lack of racially motivated behaviour. Clearly, racism is an issue of nurture rather than nature. This isn’t to say one should not celebrate their ethnic heritage or cultural practices, but rather aim to adopt a stance of divorce from the ‘race’ system entirely.

Race is, ultimately, deeply rooted social conditioning with colonial origins and it does strike me as utterly bizarre that in a post-colonial world, societies insists on the entrenchment of colonial rhetoric. By this I mean how ‘BAME’, ‘BIPOC’ and ‘Global Majority’ are essentially the latest, accepted renditions of prior, distasteful, racially-charged language: ‘coloureds’, ‘Negros’ and so on. The stamping of actual people with these racial tags, tags which germinate from parliamentary sounding rooms rather than the ethnic groups themselves no less, is more than a little objectifying. BME, the precursor to BAME, stands for ‘Black and Minority Ethnic’ and ‘Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic’. It is a term which originated in 1980s and 1990s governmental discourses regarding census forms and racial inequality. However, this racial discourse has permeated into everyday language and now dominates workplace policy and socio-political commentary alike. Rather than offering a means of

unification and community identity, racial labels alienate and detach ethnic groups from a wider whole. Individualism is abandoned and the box-ticking operation of race-labels begins.

The sterilizing quality of census forms, a dehumanizing process for everyone (regardless of race), made racial categorization permissible. Extending this language such that it becomes a defining trait of my very being, prior to the consideration of myself as an individual, is not. It is time to encourage language that supersedes racial constraints, where people are treated as a collective entity rather than subdivided on the basis of their genetic makeup. If the call for workplace diversity and the push for social equity is to be successful, then addressing race terminology is the first battlefront. Language shapes the thoughts we think, and by extension, the cognitive biases we undeniably possess. I suppose the recent shift away from openly endorsing ‘BAME’ as a suitable term is a start. The backlash following the publication of the Sewell report, which commented on racial inequalities across Britain, is to thank for this.

Racial terminology inherently gravitates towards narrowing ethnic minority voices, homogenizing the lived experiences and characteristics across a spectrum of ethnicities and nationalities. This has always been reductive and disrespectful. It feels fitting to close with another Ralph Ellison quote, if only to bookend this diatribe of mine: ‘we [speaking on behalf of African-Americans] are bound by our common suffering more than our pigmentation’ (Ellison, Shadow and Act). Racial language needs specificity and breadth, not some misguided generalization or sweeping sense of commonality. It is time to move beyond race and instead be bold, not BAME.

The Fall of Human Integrity and The Rise of Sensationalism: Emma

begs a certain question; what makes some cases so sensationalised, and what makes the public feel entitled to sensitive information?

SENIOR OPINION EDITOR

forty-five-year-old

Holly When

Nicola Bulley went missing on 27th January 2023, the British nation became invested in what had happened to the mother-of-two. Be it the fascination with the ten-minute window in which she went missing or the morbid realisation that this could have easily happened to them, an obsession began. They became fixated on the details of the case and soon overlooked the identity of Bulley herself. Soon into the investigation, personal information about her well-being was released – arguably unnecessarily. As more information was publicised over the weeks, members of the public and media companies became intrusive surrounding the case and overstepped privacy boundaries.

This is not the first time that a case has become sensationalised. As far back as the 1970s, serial killer Ted Bundy captivated the media with his reign of terror. Many citizens believed in his innocence due to his supposed charisma and ‘good looks’, and would often show their support for the murderer. In more recent times, the world became invested in the missing person case of Madeleine McCann. Even in 2023, sixteen years since McCann went missing, she is still appearing in daily headlines. Holly Spanner reports that society is enthralled with true crime due to our evolutionary need to protect ourselves from “criminal misdemeanours.” However, it

Perhaps it is because people can sympathise with the victim, or know the area in which the crime is committed. It is also suggested that we “unlock our natural desire” to solve a crime, so become devoted to figuring out the situation at hand. Although, in recent years, people have started to utilise social media platforms to spread news regarding crimes. Some do so sensitively, with a focus on the victims and do not sensationalise the criminals themselves. They educate their viewers and commemorate the lives of those affected.

However, there are those who fail to use social media for good. In the case of Nicola Bulley, Detective Superintendent Becky Smith expressed that the “social media sleuths” had not only been disruptive to the investigation but also disrespectful to the Bulley family. Smith further commented on the issue, saying that “she has never seen anything like it in her 29 years of police service.” It appears people forget that Bulley was a real person, and has a family that cares deeply for her. They are not immune to relentless cyber harassment; there are too many instances surrounding this case to count. Whether it be TikTokers uploading attempts to dig up the woodlands in which Bulley disappeared, or the man who filmed the recovery of her body, the reality is bleak.

As council chief Michael Vincent poignantly expostulated, “it’s almost as though social media idiocy

and reality have become blurred.” It is an unfortunate truth that continues to prove itself time and time again. As long as people can shelter behind social media handles, they will ruthlessly assert their opinions on matters which do not concern them.

What the investigation of Nicola Bulley's murder has highlighted.

Unique: Positive or Problematic?

Chloe Hayler

When I discovered that this issue’s theme is ‘unique’, my immediate thought was this: what does it actually mean to be ‘unique’? The English student in me could not help but delve into the etymology of the word. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as an adjective that is derived from the French meaning: ‘of which there is only one; single, sole, solitary’. However, I think the alternative OED definition: ‘that is the only one of its kind… uncommon, unusual’, is more realistic to how this term has developed and is used today.

It is a word that is often used to describe a person, usually to compliment an aspect of their appearance or personality that is ‘different’ or ‘stands out’. It is true to say that I am ‘unique’ because there is only ‘one’ of me, and as studies have concluded, the chance that there will be two people who are exactly the same is about one in a trillion. Whilst I am no mathematician, it is clearly highly unlikely. So, if no two people are the same, then surely we must all be ‘unique’ in some way? However, if we are all ‘unique’, then are we not all technically the same? So, if a natural part of human existence is that we are all different, has the word ‘unique’ become meaningless?

Perhaps being ‘unique’ is less about being ‘different’ as an abstract concept, and more about challenging social constructs. For example, Princess Diana was often praised for her ‘unique’ approach to Royal duties, in which she defied protocol by hugging a young AIDS patient to dispel the negative public atti-

tude towards the illness. It could also mean a person who does not conform to norms, such as having luminous green hair or having an above average IQ.

However, the danger with all of these examples is that they are reflective of the limiting societal standards that have been unnecessarily imposed on us; leading to the belief that the state of ‘being normal’ exists in some objective sense. Therefore, anyone who strays from this ideal of ‘normal’ is different, or indeed, ‘unique’. This dichotomy of normality and uniqueness is harmful; it can lead to bullying, prejudice, discrimination or more severe incidences, like hate crimes.

Instead, simply accepting that humans are inclined to be diverse would create a fairer, more harmonious society. Rather than employers dismissing a potential employee because they have dyed their hair pink, companies should concentrate solely on more important factors, such as the candidate’s skill set or experience.

Thus, the issue with the modern definition of ‘unique’ is that it has become synonymous with the term ‘unusual’; separating people based on futile reasons and breeding damaging stereotypes. Instead, we ought to revert to the original understanding of the concept: individual oneness. While I feel I have overused the word ‘unique’ in this article, it is far more overworked in our society. The definition has been distorted, insofar as what seems like a kind remark is in fact completely redundant.

The Democratic Downfall of Journalism

Olivia Taylor

SENIOR CULTURE EDITOR

Daniel Pearl was an American journalist. Near the time of his abduction and death, he had been working in Mumbai, India as the Southeast Asia bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal, but had travelled with his family to Karachi, Pakistan to report on the United States’ War on Terrorism following the 9/11 attacks by Al-Qaeda in 2001. Pearl was recognised for his journalistic detail and his ability to empathise with how humanity –and our own human nature – is affected by international issues. Consequently, he was considerate of the reported portrayal of the Islamic world towards his Western readers. Nevertheless, during his time in Karachi in early 2002, Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by several Islamist jihadist groups working together, operating under the Lashkar-e-Omar umbrella.

Nine days before Pearl was beheaded by terrorists, the militants involved with his kidnapping and murder had sent the United States several demands related to Pakistani terror detainees and the Pakistani government.

The message read:

‘We give you one more day if America will not meet our demands we will kill Daniel. Then this cycle will continue and no American journalist could enter Pakistan.’

Pearl is just one of the many, many journalists throughout the media’s history who have been subjected to violations of their human rights. Still today, little has been done to

protect the freedoms of those working in the media.

In 2021, Amal Clooney, a barrister specialising in international law and human rights, published an article for Just Security titled, ‘Don’t Let the Autocrats Win - How Biden Can Use the Democracy Summit to Build Back Media Freedoms,’. In the article, Clooney suggests ways in which modern day democracies can protect their journalists and punish those who persecute them. Her research – formulated alongside existing knowledge on the topic – creates a strong argument for what must be done by democracies to stop the persecution of journalists at the hands of leading autocracies. In short, Clooney suggests providing quick, emergency refuge to journalists that may be at risk of danger, “robust diplomatic support”, the identification and prosecution of those who abuse the rights of media persons, and the introduction of “targeted financial and travel sanctions against those who prosecute the press,”.

In a 2020 report by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) that looks at “Advice on Promoting More Effective Investigations into Abuses against Journalists,” it is stated that there has been “insufficient progress” in terms of the efforts already in place to protect journalists. Whilst the United Nations Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity has done more to report on the injustices faced by journalists, it has not necessarily prevented the scale of crimes that are committed. Clooney herself is a member of the IBAHRI, and it comes as no surprise that she is seemingly frustrated at the slow

levels of progress that perpetuate this ongoing crisis inflicting the freedom of the press. As Clooney implies, the need for governmental funding to create effective “international task forces” has never been more crucial to the safeguarding of journalists.

The issue is, this is not something that can be tackled from one side. The foundation of Clooney’s argument is correct, but her ideals are impractical. Her proposals will never be taken seriously by democracies when other worldly factors continuously push aside the importance of protecting journalists and the freedom of information. Can we really completely eradicate these crimes and equally hold everyone who commits them accountable, or is it merely a question of reducing the possibilities of these incidents occurring? It is simply impossible to prevent all risks that journalists face, as we are ongoingly witnessing with the Ukraine war, but states should be actively doing more to reinforce the safety that is necessary. In times of crisis, freedom of information is crucial, but why should those involved in reporting be subjected to the possibility of situations like Daniel Pearl’s?

By Dolly Alderton

LITERATURE: Hopeless Romantic Olivia

Taylor

SENIOR CULTURE EDITOR

Ihave held myself back from discussing Dolly Alderton for quite some time now. I first read her debut memoir Everything I Know About Love three years ago, during lockdown, and I have not shut up about it since. I’ll admit, her fictional debut, Ghosts, did not impress me as much; I quickly realised it was her confessional tone that caught my attention, hence why her autobiographical work and her ‘Dear Dolly’ advice column have left such a lasting impression. Since reading Everything I Know About Love, I have continued to stay up to date with her work, but I only recently found an essay she wrote for The Pound Project in 2018 titled ‘Hopeless Romantic’.

The Pound Project is an independent publishing company founded by JP Watson. Their message is to shout about ‘the value of reading and writing for everyone’ through the publication of short stories and essays that are of an accessible price, whilst also raising awareness and funds for charities surrounding the topics of ‘addiction, grief, suicide, mental health, the arts, sustainable business and the environment’. In 2018, JP Watson approached Alderton with the opportunity of publishing her short essay ‘Hopeless Romantic,’ a title that feels incredibly fitting to her style. Just as I do, in his introduction, Watson gushes over Alderton’s ability to comment on the matters of the heart, which

ultimately comes from her desire to take her readers on a journey with her. Alderton manages to find a balance that is a rarity; not many writers can tell us so much about their lives, but so little at the same time.

As her narrative begins, Alderton claims she caught her self-diagnosed illness of being a romantic from a young age. This, as she goes on to describe, came from a combination of factors, but she places most of the blame on the happy marriage of her parents, whose love and admiration for one another left her with unattainable expectations for her own love life. She also places an emphasis on the arts, suggesting that both music and cinema, perhaps a little too much of it, resulted in her romantic, caught up imagination. Alderton argues ‘Diehard romanticism is like shingles. It’s something that lies dormant, just waiting for a flare-up at a moment of weakness,’. She is right, we don’t necessarily become hopeless romantics unless there is something to be hopeless about. We get those twinges of romanticism and we think it's all going to work out in our favour. Alderton takes it to the next level, where she is ‘ducking out of perfectly good dinner plans’ and ‘rare celestial wonders’ just to save these romantic moments for the right person, a person she has merely made up. Perhaps they do exist, but the problem with being a hopeless romantic is that you are always searching for something more, and usually that makes for an awkward situation.

At least Alderton is self-aware. She claims that she has her romanticism

‘under control’, but that does not stop those twinges occurring every once in a while. A predisposition is what Alderton suggests and perhaps that is how it is for the rest of us, a predetermined part of our lives that we simply cannot escape.

We are all - well, at least I certainly am - a little too idealistic. I would like to hope it's a flaw we all share. Our ideals change shape over time: when we are children, a lot of us are sheltered from the realities of life, then we get a little older and think we are invincible, and finally we become adults and ultimately assume we are prepared for what is coming. It is in times when we realise that we are in fact not prepared, that those idealistic tendencies from when we were children continue to follow us; they just take a different form. Being a hopeless romantic, like Alderton, is merely a grown up fantasy that things will turn out the way you want. If you are lucky, those ideals may work in your favour, but sometimes we do need to ‘pop bubbles’ and ‘observe the cognitive road-signs’ and bring ourselves back down into the real world. I do not think we help ourselves, and inevitably we will never learn. Whether we call it personal persuasion or simply delusion, being idealistic - in any way, not just in love - can leave us paying a price that we often did not sign up for.

Alderton’s next novel, Good Material is set to be released in November 2023.

The Uniqueness of Welsh Heritage and Traditions

My beautiful home, the great and picturesque Wales, holds one of the most distinct and ancient cultures in the UK. But my culture is sadly one of the most forgotten and neglected. I often feel disconnected with my culture and heritage, and I’m sure that a lot of Welsh citizens feel the same.

I grew up in the South of Wales. Our small valley towns are comforting and homely, and only a drive away from the bigger cities such as Cardiff and Swansea. I spoke Welsh occasionally at school, but not enough to hold a conversation that went beyond what I liked and where I had been that summer. I partook in our traditions such as Eisteddfod and St David’s day, and I have always made Welsh cakes with my mother on our baking stone at home. It wasn’t until I moved to England for University that I realised how unique my upbringing was in Wales. I grew to appreciate my culture even more when I was away from home, but also came to realise how little of Welsh culture is known to people outside of Wales. There is a gloomy side to Welsh history that not many non-Welsh people know about. In the 16th century, Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England by the ‘Laws in Wales Act’ which imposed the English language and norms onto Welsh citizens. Despite this political history of Wales, our identity has always prevailed. Although it is often said that Welsh culture and language is dying, its vibrancy and liveliness increase seach year. Our culture staying alive is thanks to the spreading awareness and appreciation for our country, which I hope to share with you the reader.

Here is some further, interesting information about Wales and Welsh culture:

Mythology: The legend of Gelert the dog

The legend of Gelert, the wolfhound from Beddgelert in northwest Wales, tells the tale of Llywelyn the Great returning from a hunt and finding his baby missing. He finds Gelert with a blood-stained mouth and, believing that he killed his child, slays the hound with his sword. Llywelyn then hears his baby cry from under the cradle alongside a dead wolf which had attacked the child. Overcome with grief and regret, Llywelyn buries Gelert and is said to never smile again. Gelert’s grave can be found by a stone monument in the village of Beddgelert (meaning ‘Gelert’s grave).

Traditional Welsh Costume:

The traditional costume of Wales can be seen in old pictures of Welsh citizens living in rural Wales. Nowadays you will see the costume being worn during events such as St David’s day, Royal visits, and occasionally the Eisteddfod. I remember dressing up in the Welsh lady dress every year at school and our pictures would be shown in the local newspaper. Women’s dress consists of the iconic black hat, a white bonnet under the hat, a chequered shawl over the shoulders, and a skirt or apron. Men’s costume consists of a flat cap, waistcoat, and smart trousers.

source: Thomas, John, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Symbols and Celebrations:

Love spoons are intricately carved wooden spoons that are given as a token of love and affection, traditionally for romantic partners but are now given by anyone and for many different occasions. Each love spoon is unique and hand crafted and there are different meanings for the symbols carved into the spoon. as well as the knots and plaits in the wood.

The red dragon is the emblem of Wales and is most notably seen on our national flag. The emblem has been used since 655AD and appears in many historical texts such as the Mabinogoin and Historia Brittonum. These stories depict the red dragon battling with an invading white dragon which is said to represent the Anglo-Saxons. The red dragon defeats the invading dragon and has subsequently become a symbol of our strength as a nation.

The Eisteddfod is a Welsh language festival celebrating Welsh language, literature, music, and performance.

The modern history of the organisation dates to 1861, but it can be traced as far back as 1176. You can watch the Eisteddfod competition every year on Welsh tv channels, and many schools put on their own Eisteddfod competitions to celebrate the student’s different talents.

I would sing at my high school Eisteddfod every year, but there is also dance, poetry reciting, and many more different showcases.

Welsh Language: Some interesting facts

The Welsh language is divided into many dialects and variants that vary across the country.

It is one of the oldest languages in Britain and, according to Gov.uk, has the oldest literature in Europe apart from Latin and Greek. Wales also has the longest place name in the UK with 58 letters! It is called llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.

According to the ONS 2021 census, only 17.8% of residents in Wales aged three years andolder can speak Welsh. Despite this statistic, Welsh is not considered an endangered language and has never died out. There have been moments in Welsh history, however, where the language has been heavily controlled and put at risk. For example, By the 19th century, all education in Wales was in the English language and it wasn’t uncommon for school children to be beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh in class. Thanks to the increasing recognition of Welsh culture and language, the statistics of Welsh speakers in Wales is slowly increasing. More Welsh citizens are taking pride in their heritage and traditions which means that we can pass down our culture to younger generations.

Food:

Welsh food is one of my favourite parts of Welsh culture. There is nothing better than going to the local market and watching fresh and warm Welsh cakes being made or making bara brith with your family. Welsh cakes are possibly the most famous Welsh treats and are hard to describe to someone who has never tried them. They’re a mix between cake and biscuit and are traditionally made with sultanas or raisins and dusted with sugar. Bara brith is a deliciously moist bread made with dried fruit marinated in tea and spices. It can be enjoyed warm or cold, but I prefer it warm with butter. Cawl is the national dish of Wales and is a delightful soup made with lamb or beef with leeks, potatoes, swedes, and carrots.

Can the Privilege to Say ‘No’ be Extended?

The Intimacy Intervention: Tia

Martello

STAFF WRITER

Penn Badgley, the star of the popular Netflix series "You," recently revealed in his podcast, "Podcrushed," that he requested all sex scenes to be cut from the show. The response from the director, Sera Gamble, was "really positive," and she came back with a "phenomenal reduction." The reason for Badgley's request? His fidelity to his real-life partner. It's not often that we see Hollywood actors prioritising their real-life relationships over their on-screen personas, but Badgley's dedication is admirable. In fact, it was one of the reasons he almost turned down the role of Joe Goldberg in "You." He didn't want to compromise his commitment to his partner. However, this revelation sparked an interesting question. Would a female actor be granted the same privilege to request the removal of sex scenes from a show? It's a thought-provoking issue that highlights the double standards that still exist in the entertainment industry today.

"You" is now in its fourth season, and Joe Goldberg's character has had multiple fixations on women throughout the series. The idea of cutting intimate scenes may seem uncharacteristic, but Gamble was able to reduce them in an intriguing way. All scenes with Badgley are now filmed with him either fully clothed or not at all, adding to the plot instead of detracting from it. But, if a female actor were to request the same thing, would it receive the same reception? Would it be seen as a brave move, or would

she be judged for her lack of commitment to the role? It's a question that speaks to the deeper issues of gender inequality in the entertainment industry. Badgley's decision to prioritise his real-life relationship over his on-screen persona is commendable. It's refreshing to see an actor making choices that align with their values, even if it means sacrificing some of the show's content. But, it's essential to consider whether the same opportunity would be granted to a female actor. It's time to challenge the double standards that still exist in Hollywood and create a more equal playing field for all actors.

Intimate scenes have always been a staple in Hollywood productions. Whether it's a steamy love scene or a passionate kiss, these moments have become an integral part of the storytelling process. However, when it comes to the gender bias within these scenes, there is still a lot of work to be done in the entertainment industry. Take, for example, the 2019 film "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood." In the movie, Margot Robbie portrays actress Sharon Tate, and she has several scenes that show her in various stages of undress. However, the camera lingers on her body in a way that objectifies her and turns her into nothing more than a sexual object. The same cannot be said for the male actors in the movie, such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, who are shown in nude scenes that are much more subtle and nuanced. Another example of gender bias in intimate scenes is the way that they are often written and directed. Women are often portrayed as passive and submissive, while male characters are shown as dominant and in control. This power dynamic reinforces

gender stereotypes and perpetuates harmful attitudes towards women. The television series "Game of Thrones" is a perfect example of this. The show has been criticised for its gratuitous use of nudity and sex scenes, many of which depict women in submissive roles. The show's creators defended the scenes by saying that they were necessary for the story's authenticity, but many viewers disagreed.

The double standard does not just apply to heterosexual partnerships. Several LGBTQ+ shows include sequences written and produced from a male perspective, maintaining the same gender stereotypes seen in heterosexual scenes. The entertainment industry must address these gender prejudices and foster a more equitable and inclusive workplace. More women and LGBTQ+ people must be engaged in the scripting and direction of intimate scenes to ensure that they are depicted authentically and respectfully.

To summarise, gender prejudice in intimate scenes in Hollywood and the entertainment business is a complicated and ubiquitous issue. There is still a lot of work to be done to create a more equal and inclusive atmosphere, from how performers are treated on set to how scenes are written and directed. It's time for the industry to take a hard look at itself and start making meaningful changes. Only then can we expect a more positive and accurate portrayal of gender and sexuality in cinema and television.

The Rise of Maisie Peters

From bedroom karaoke to international concerts.

ElenaTeodora Chiujdea

For anyone who has not encountered her music yet – and if you haven’t, have you been living under a rock? – Maisie Peters is a 22-yearold British pop-indie singer, who recently joined Ed Sheeran on his 2022 tour. Like him or not, opening for Ed Sheeran is a huge deal, especially when you have the chance to do it in Paris, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany and many more stages across Europe. From the comfort of singing to her parents or friends from the age of eight, Maisie grew her love for music and composed her first song at 9 – talk about starting your career early – then started writing songs regularly at 12. With an ever changing music industry, many young singers today turn their hobbies into a passion, their heartbreaks and losses into pure art. Maisie Peters added herself to that list by first busking in Brighton as a young 15-year-old. Not long after, in the midst of her A levels, she signed with Atlantic Records who discovered her songs on YouTube. Surprisingly, right after signing, she decided to focus on her education and only return to music if it was meant to be.

As appealing as fame in the music industry might have been, Peters made the logical decision to prioritise her education first. After an inevitable break from music, listeners were hit with snippets of Maisie’s debut songs that put her on the British charts. ‘Psycho’ and ‘John Hughes Movie’ follow the classic toxic boyfriend cheating on his girlfriend. Despite this being common-

place in the genre of music, with artists like Taylor Swift dominating the industry for the past decade, Maisie Peters broke the cliché. The John Hughes reference goes against the girl gets the guy rom-com genre. Who doesn’t like the classic Breakfast Club or 16 Candles? Well, the young singer turned the movies on their head and gave us a reality check with how love works today. No fairy-tale ending. ‘Love him I don’t’, ‘Villain’ and ‘Blonde’ are just a few other public favourites. Why? They’re relatable and current. She pushes forward ideas about feminism and learning that you are not supposed to be liked by everyone you meet. As the saying goes, some people are only meant to be with you for a season.

the soundtrack of Birds of Prey with the song ‘Smile’. Peters went on to travel across the United States in 2022 on her headlining tour. That didn’t stop her from releasing a few other songs that made their way into our hearts in no time, including ‘Cate’s Brother’ and ‘Not Another Rockstar’. The second album, ‘The Good Witch’, followed suit with ‘Body Better’ as the lead single and Maisie had the opportunity to announce her 2023 tour in the United Kingdom.

If you have not given her a listen, I implore you to type in her name onto Spotify and see what happens. It is my promise to you that you’ll most likely be blasting your car’s speakers with the lyrics already memorised by the end of the week. She can take you effortlessly from laughing out loud to crying your eyes out, and fans are here for it!

– Maisie Peters

This was the singer’s reaction to realising she’ll be performing at the Wembley Arena next year. In her shoes, anyone would have the same whirlwind response: you are twenty-two years old, travelling the world, sharing your music with people and no one is in your way. It all happened so quickly, becoming a dream turned into reality. But really, how did she move away from being Ed Shereen’s opening act to an artist in her own right, with her own albums and concerts across the UK? After leaving Atlantic Records to sign with Ed Shereen’s record label, Maisie Peters got the opportunity to release her first debut album You Signed Up For This. From then on, ‘Favourite Ex’ and ‘Feels Like This’ were featured on Love Island. Talking about a pinch me moment, she also added her contribution to

“This truly feels illegal”

Unique Niche Interests and Finding your Crowd at University

Emilie Williams

STAFF WRITER

Finding like-minded individuals who share your niche interests can be difficult, especially if you are new to a city or starting university. It may feel like your hobbies or interests are not well-known or popular. You may like an obscure musical genre, a specialised type of craft, or you may simply know a lot about a certain subject and really want to discuss it with others. However, university is a great place to explore these interests and use it to connect with others. You’re never alone when it comes to the rare things that spark your interest, but it may not always feel like it. Niche hobbies are often ridiculed in secondary schools for simply being ‘different’ or appearing ‘weird’. University is a different playing field, as the things that were once mocked for being ‘weird’ are now the things that make someone passionate and unique.

The other great news is that it’s never too late to find a community that shares the same unique interests as you. I personally didn’t join any societies until my third year and have still found it an amazing way to meet new people and explore my interests. It takes time to find the right crowd, so don’t worry if it feels like you’re getting nowhere.

Here are some tips for exploring and sharing your niche interests at university:

Join Clubs and Societies:

Royal Holloway has one of the most diverse range of societies and clubs for students to join. The Students Union embraces the celebration of specific interests, hobbies, and activities as it’s an easy way for students to make friends. The SU societies range from traditional clubs like sports teams or debate clubs, to more niche topics like anime, knitting, or gaming. Joining these groups can be a great way to connect with others who share your interests, and many of them offer free taster sessions for you to try them out before becoming a member.

Finding friends through social media:

Social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram can be great tools for connecting with others who share your niche interests. Look for groups or pages dedicated to your interests at your university and join the conversation. Many of Royal Holloway’s societies have social media pages where you can ask questions before joining.

Attend campus events:

Attend events organised by the university such as pub quizzes, lectures dedicated to niche subjects, and movie screenings. This is a great way to meet new people and learn about what you have in common with other students. Royal Holloway hosts a wide range of events and activities throughout the year, many of which are directly run by the Hall Life team. You can find

them advertised on posters around campus or on the university’s social media pages.

Be open-minded:

It may be difficult to initially find a specific club or group that matches your niche interest. In this case, be open to exploring other areas of interest that may be related to yours. For example, if you are interested in a specific type of music, consider joining a music society or attending an event of a similar genre. You can also create your own student group at the Student’s Union if you cannot find a group that specialises in your interests. Overall, university can be a great place to explore your niche interests and connect with others who share your passions. By being proactive and open-minded, you can find a community that supports and inspires the things that make you unique.

SENIOR SPORTS EDITOR

Sometimes, within sport, someone catches your eye. They look effortless in their movements and seem unparalleled in talent. Almost as if they are playing on easy mode. This is the kind of grace that rarely surfaces. The strangest part of this grace is the backstory behind it. People who have this grace give an air of calm and confidence. Think of people like Usain Bolt, Pele, or Ayrton Senna. All seemed so effortless in their craft.

Unique in their craft and unique in their mentality, these people are a cut above the competition. But behind that craft is a story to be told. One such story is of Gary Hunt.

Gary Hunt is a greatly respected professional Cliff Diver who is one of those unique talents. Winning 9 of the 11 world series titles, he is among the best of the best. However, strip him back to his core and you find what makes him unique is what makes all of us unique. His journey.

When Hunt was just forging his path in the world of diving, he lost his best friend. Gavin Brown was like an anchor to Hunt. He kept him grounded. Losing that put him on a course of no direction. Following time, he gathered himself together and became a force to reckon with. In and out of competition. He had talent, sure, but what makes him unique is the experience he had to add meaning

to his journey. The journey that makes all greats do their sport with grace.

Imagine you are up on that cliff, about to jump. Each one of your movements must be perfectly choreographed. Executed to life saving accuracy. Your mind and body have to be in sync, work as one unit to perform such acts without the stress to distract you. Being in sync is what needs to be achieved to make things look easy. Where you are no longer thinking about your actions but rather living them on autopilot.

An autopilot is what you must be figuratively and literally. Falling through the air with confidence that when you finish your craft, you will land feet first into the water. You have to be comfortable with your environment and your craft, otherwise danger can strike quickly. The whole feeling resembles the idea of Yin and Yang. Harmony must exist for things to come together.

Grace is therefore something that comes with experience and meaning. A journey which plants a seed deep inside an individual as to blossom into a talent of finesse. This combination of a goal and honed talent can bring about the grace in actions of an individual. The grace which makes their actions look effortless and beautiful.

From afar it is a joy to see such people participate in sport. Makes them unique in the field and elevates the grace with which they work. Beautiful things do not ask for attention yet capture the gaze with such intensity. This is what

grace within sport does and people like Gary Hunt are only a handful of people in sport who hold this unique presence.

Grace Within Sport Peter Vigh

This Poem Is Only About Oranges

by Jas

You find where I am most tender and pierce me

I bleed out onto your hands

Sticky, wet, all consuming

Slightly bitter in taste

But sweet the more you eat

As you rip me apart piece by piece

Segment by segment

Have no fear, for this poem is only about oranges

Satiating your hunger

I (oranges) sustain you

Everyone I Have Ever Known

by Ellie Pritchard

I keep a bag of chocolate eclairs in the car because my dad told me that they’re the best sweets to have on long drives.

I cure hiccups with a glass of water the way the man who came to fix the washing machine cured my brother’s when we were kids.

I tie my shoelaces with one hand because that’s the way my grandma taught me. I remember the smile of a girl in my dance class when I showed her how to do it too.

I collect copies of my favourite book, because my English teacher collected copies of his. I crack the spines unevenly, and can imagine my housemate wincing even when she doesn’t see me do it.

I know all the words to the ‘Glass Houses’ album because it was the only CD my mum kept in the car. I sing along loudly, joyfully, carelessly, tunelessly, freely, because that’s how my mum sings.

I can fold fitted bedsheets into perfect squares because of a girl I met on summer camp. I keep all of the bedlinen sets tucked inside their own pillowcases, because, well, who doesn’t?

I wear a ring on my right forefinger because my best friend bought the same ring for each of her siblings, and wanted me to have one too.

I wear a jumper that used to belong to my grandad, and curl my fists inside the long sleeves when I miss him. I can hear his voice telling me to stop stretching the wool or it’ll lose its shape.

I am pieces of all the people I have ever known.

There are many poems like this, I have read plenty. We are all insistent that we are collages of other people. Everyone is not themselves, Rather, we are all one another.

The Flower

by Ellie Pritchard

The girl walking in front of me suddenly stopped, reaching out a hand to touch the laurel bush beside the pavement.

I had my head down, walking home, braced against the cold. I wasn’t stopping to look at the laurel hedge.

Not until I saw her pause, wait, smile, and then carry on. I wondered what made her stop.

I stopped in the same place. I turned to see what had caught her eye.

A flower, shaped a little like a bluebell, with purple petals blooming from a yellow centre. The only flower visible throughout the whole hedge.

It’s not a flower you usually see on a laurel bush. I touched it softly, just as the other girl had, and smiled like she had at the flower that didn’t belong.

It had sprouted from nowhere, pushed its way up through the leaves, through a body which was not its own, to fight up to the sunlight.

To the girl who stopped and looked at the flower which I would not have noticed otherwise – I’m glad you did.

Thames 21

We are a student group of the national Thames 21 charity, focusing on conservation, community and rewilding the Thames.

Rivers are valuable for everyone in one way or another, especially during the pandemic. We eat, walk, cycle, jog, all kinds of leisure activities along the rivers. However, we also witness litter, sewage dump, and pollution in general along the waterways.

Volunteer with us to be a part of creating a change.

River, river, flowing by.

Oh! Who’s that? The swans came by! Curious, curious, in the mind. Making ways through the beautiful Hythe.

Having no fear

Approached us near Checked our work. Please, Don’t eat our seeds!

We just planted them today. Can you come back another day? The day when the trees we planted grow. And we pick the litter all.

Volunteers come along. We are singing happy songs. Need no skills, just bring yourself. Our sessions are fun itself!

River, river, flows have changed. Clear the brambles. Wow the water seems strange!

Fresher, current in the right course. Our efforts, finally, they have exposed.

Dear Davison, Dear

Davison,

I started my first year at Royal Holloway last September and have loved every minute of it so far. I was always excited to start university and gain the independence I had longed for whilst living at home. Don’t get me wrong, I love my home and my family however I have always felt very caged in when I am back at home because my parents are very overprotective. Whilst I understand it comes from a place of love, as I have grown older I have found it very frustrating. I thought that when I went to university this would calm down but if anything their levels of concern have increased. I am expected to call them for hours every single day, go home every weekend and continuously update them on my whereabouts. They even continue to track my phone! Have you got any advice on how I can approach them and tell them how I feel about their ‘helicopter parenting’?

Going to university and finally having that independence you so badly wanted is such a weird experience. It is great that you feel confident with your new life at uni, but equally I understand how frustrating it must be to feel that you are still stuck in the situation you were in at home.

I can assure you that, from the sound of it, your parents’ concern really does come from a place of love. Whilst I cannot comment on the experiences of parenthood, I can only imagine it must be a very daunting feeling to have to suddenly say goodbye to your child and allow them to live their own life separately from your own. Letting go is never easy; when you have raised a child for eighteen years, it must be near impossible to suddenly turn off the immense feeling of responsibility that has filled your waking hours. Try to empathise with your parents and their feelings. Understand their motivations and it may become easier to discuss this with them in a rational and productive fashion.

And it sounds as though you really do need to talk to them about it – don’t turn your location off or block their calls, as this will only reinforce the feelings they are already experiencing. I’d recommend that when you next go home to see them, tell them how you feel. It might be hard for your parents to hear what you want to say, but they need to understand that as you grow older and gain more independence, they have to take a step back and trust that you can make your own decisions. Don’t come down on them too hard; try to remember they are only being like this because they care about you. However, don’t hold back when explaining the way that their behaviour makes you feel.

In discussing the situation with them, you can show that you are responsible, mature, self-sufficient, and capable of independence. The change in their perception won’t come overnight – and this will likely be a frustrating, upsetting, and difficult transition for both you and your family.

Explain to your parents how happy and settled you are at university – talking to them about the friends you have made or the societies you have joined. Then calmly lay out the reasons why their expectations are preventing further development of these avenues, and what you may miss out on if you are continually expected to shuttle between home and university each week. Try to accept a compromise at first; every two weeks, perhaps, and then work from there.

It will always be the case that some people’s parents will be more involved and some less so when their children leave home. I shan’t pass judgement on whether one of these is inherently better, but perhaps take comfort in the fact that some of your peers with more “hands-off” parents may feel adrift and alone in some respects. Parenting is hard, and being a young adult making the transition from childhood is hard too.

I hope this helps you in some way. Ultimately, you know your relationship with your parents best, and it is possible that another technique may work better. But I believe that calm, rational discussion with the family that you love is the best hope for maintaining these relationships as you blossom into adulthood.

Have a problem and want some advice? WE

Inexpertly set by the Editorial Team TheCrossword

ACROSS:

3. Rihanna song, or waterproof tool (8)

6. Bestselling spy novelist David Cornwell's pen name (4,2,5)

8. Scarily vibrant cocktail, or popular tourist spot in Iceland (4,6)

11. Semi-aquatic, egg-laying mammal (8)

13. Chart-topping, non-binary artist (3,5)

15. Most flammable building in the UK (7)

17. Girl's name, sometimes used in the name of a headband (5)

DOWN:

1. Amal Clooney's husband (6)

2. Lighting on Crosslands' tables (6)

4. Television presenter who recently branched out into cozy crime novels (7,5)

5. Further education college in Egham Town (7)

7. SU president during the academic year 2021-22 (4,7)

9. Favourite nicotine source among students (3,3)

10. If your eyesight is bad, it's where you should've gone (10)

12. Surname of artist on originial recording of "Son of a Preacher Man", or setting of the Simpsons

14. Popular energy drink (7)

15. Monday event at Medicine (5)