Student Life
Oxford Union town hall HT26 re-run: Meet the candidates
A re-poll for the Oxford Union Presidency for Michaelmas 2026 is set to take place on Monday 11th May, after President-Elect Catherine Xu was found guilty by tribunal of electoral fraud. The candidates running to be President in Michaelmas 2026 – Liza Barkova, Hamza Hussain, Gareth Lim, and Victor Andrés Marroquín – spoke to Cherwell about the current state of the Oxford Union, including recent controversies, their vision for their presidency, and their reasons for running.
Introduce yourself briefly. Why are you running to be President?
Liza: Hey, my name is Liza and I am a second-year PPE student at Christ Church. I have served on the Union Committee three times, including Junior Appointed committee, Secretary’s Committee, and Standing Committee. Why I’m running – I come from a country where free speech is often suppressed by the government regime. The Union was the first place where I found that people truly believe that their opinions can matter on an international scale. That experience made a profound impression on me. The Union has an extraordinary platform, but its success ultimately depends on how well it serves the members who use it today. For me, this election is about INSPIRING a culture that genuinely welcomes all opinions.
Gareth: Hello! I’m Gareth Lim, former Chair of Competitive Debating at the Oxford Union and third year Law student at St Peter’s College. I have only ever run in one Union-wide election (the one that we are re-doing). Before this cycle, I exclusively spent my time in the Union managing consistent budget surpluses, coaching debate, and participating in debates. I believe my skill, character, and commitment make me the best candidate.
Victor: My name is Victor Marroquín-Merino. I read for the MSc in Latin American Studies at Oxford, and since graduating in 2024, I have worked in political consulting after co-founding a public affairs and political strategy firm. Over the past year, my life took me away from Oxford and back into the realities of political life in Peru. I never expected to find myself standing in this chamber again as a candidate for President of the Oxford Union Society. But returning to Oxford during one of the most turbulent periods in the Union’s recent history convinced me that the institution needs leadership capable of restoring confidence, competence, and seriousness. I am running because I believe the Union deserves a clean slate – and a return to the standards that once made it one of the most respected debating societies in the world.
Hamza: Hi, I’m Hamza, a final year History and Politics student. I previously served on the Union’s Standing Committee. I am running to be President because I believe the traditions of free speech and debate upheld by the Union are worth defending.
Which manifesto commitment are you most passionate about?
Liza: I am most passionate about the pledge for financial revival. I have a number of ideas for strengthening the Union’s financial structure so that our events have generous budgets while also remaining financially sustainable. This is not a simple task and we cannot perform miracles overnight, but there are realistic steps we can take. One of the most important is building stronger long-term relationships with Union alumni. The Union has an extraordinary network of former members across politics, business, media, and academia. By reconnecting with that network we can both raise funds and create new opportunities for speakers, mentorship, and engagement with current members. Strengthening those connections would be a reliable and sustainable way to support the Union financially.
Gareth: In the last interview, I stated that I was most passionate about expanding member participation in debating. Given additional time for consideration my third manifesto commitment returning intellectual rigour to the Union is, to me, of the widest relevance. Lots of terms often choose to focus on political or IR issues, but I believe that we can expand ourselves to debates about Art, Science, or even the more than occasional comedy debate!
In some ways, the Union has limited its selection of guests to those involved in politics. The problem is a lot of these guests are often deeply controversial, unavailable, and often not so interesting to members who would prefer a low-cortisol experience. Oxford is a city with a great deal of potential with regards to guests who are deeply intertwined with a great deal ointellectual pursuits and it is a great opportunity to bring a sense of curiosity back to the Union. This allows the average member to participate again, something that I believe is crucial if it is to remain fit for purpose.
Victor: What matters most to me is restoring confidence in the Union’s leadership and direction. The Union should be known for the quality of its debate, the calibre of its ideas, and the seriousness of its institution – not for constant controversy and constant internal strife. I want members to feel that the Union represents the very best of Oxford again.
Hamza: I am most passionate about my commitment to see greater transparency in the invitation process. I would like to see a common invitation policy introduced to ensure consistency in the process across terms. This would clearly set out how committee members should identify potential speakers and conduct due diligence.
What do you admire most about your opponents?
Liza: I have a great deal of respect for everyone running in this election. Victor Andrés Morroquin has impressive professional experience. He entered the presidential race at a late stage but has always shown great commitment to the Union. Gareth Lim is an exceptional speaker and an extremely skilled debater. Hamza Hussain has a clear sense of purpose and has devoted a great deal of time to charitable work, which is always important in someone who wants to hold a position of leadership.
Gareth: I’ve said it before and I will say it again – their time management skills. Running for election is exhausting and I’m having so much trouble fitting the rest of my priorities while campaigning. I have no doubt that the other candidates are among the most high-functioning people in the world.
Victor: Anyone willing to stand for the Union presidency during such a difficult moment clearly cares deeply about the institution, and I respect that commitment. While we may disagree on direction or leadership, I believe everyone running wants to see the Union move forward.
Hamza: Their commitment to the Society and the courage they have shown in putting themselves forward for the Presidency.
There has been controversy over the past few terms relating to Union disciplinary procedures and tribunal decisions. Do you believe procedures have been misused? What steps will you take to restore faith in Union disciplinary procedures?
Liza: I am not aware of any outcome of disciplinary procedures to have been improper. I strictly condemn any attempt to rig or misuse these proceedings. More importantly, I am saddened that the previous successful candidate for the Position of President-Elect has chosen to commit fraud during the Hilary election meaning that honest candidates have to repeat this process. As President I will look to ensure that the people in charge of disciplinary processes are chosen in a more transparent way.
Gareth: Short answer – yes. Candidates are incentivised to use the Union disciplinary procedure as a replacement for campaigning. This has led to a culture of fear regarding getting ‘tribbed’ and toxicity within the Union. It is not my place to comment on the results of recent tribunals at this time. It would be highly irresponsible of me to make specific comments that I am unable to back up. But I definitely believe that we have become over-reliant on the disciplinary process.
To answer the second question – candidates make big promises regarding the restoration of faith in the disciplinary process. Personally I believe that we should stick with following the rules rather than our constant obsession with reforming them. I believe that a president who is running independently, with no ties to slates and who has no reason to stick around after his term, is a good start in removing the culture of fear that surrounds the disciplinary process.
Victor: I believe the deeper issue is that many members have lost confidence in the consistency, transparency, and legitimacy of Union governance. Regardless of where individuals stand on specific decisions, that loss of trust is damaging for the institution. As President, I would prioritise procedural clarity, transparency, and communication with members. The Union cannot function effectively if large parts of the membership feel disconnected from or distrustful of its internal processes.
Hamza: While I am unable to comment on individual disciplinary hearings where I was not a party, I do believe there are legitimate concerns about how these proceedings affect those involved. I believe the only route forward is to implement the relevant recommendations of reports commissioned by the Union on disciplinary proceedings.
Do you support the decision to invite Tommy Robinson to the Oxford Union?
Liza: While I believe that the Union should not shy away from controversial topics and it is at the discretion of the President to invite speakers they want, Tommy Robinson has come to the Union in the past and did not contribute anything worth listening to. His stance is based on hate rather than reason which has no place in a debate. I would not have invited him.
Gareth: No. But I suspect you would like me to elaborate. One side of the argument states that we are a free speech society and should therefore platform important voices in debates. The other side states that Tommy Robinson has a history of endangering the safety of the marginalized. I think the pro-invitation side has missed the point. It is not just that Tommy Robinson causes a culture of fear, but also that he has been invited to the Union before and that I genuinely do not believe that he would add much to our history of reasoned discussion.
Free-speech is important, but as the Oxford Union, we must use our institutional power responsibly, inviting Tommy Robinson did not fulfill our responsibility to our members. Presidents should publish clear criteria of who they would invite. I would consider the following: First, do they have a history of inciting violence or criminal charges? Second, how influential are they in our society? Thirdly, how beneficial would their invitation be to advancing useful dialogue? Lastly, how interesting will their speech be? While these criteria must be balanced against one another, Tommy Robinson meets none of these criteria.
Victor: In my view, inviting Tommy Robinson was the wrong decision. I do not believe it contributed meaningful intellectual value proportionate to the level of controversy and division it generated within the membership and across the wider university community. I absolutely do not support this invitation. But I also believe the issue extends beyond any individual speaker. The Union has a long tradition of defending free speech and hosting controversial figures, and that principle matters. However, free speech also requires judgement, responsibility, and serious consideration of how invitations affect the institution and its members.
Hamza: I would not have invited him. I support the Union’s right to invite controversial speakers for scrutiny, but whether individual invitations are wise should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Tommy Robinson already has a platform and has previously spoken at the Union. No individual has the right to an invitation by the Union, and the President should always act in the interests of the Society, its members, and with due regard for the impact of their decisions.
Recent weeks have seen widespread opposition from other student societies regarding the platforming of Union speakers, including Carl Benjamin, Tommy Robinson, and Karim Khan. How would you respond to criticism from other university societies in your presidency?
Liza: In the Union all members have the opportunity to ask public questions to the President before the start of the debate. These questions may be put as concerns raised by other university societies. I would have to answer in front of the entire chamber. This would ensure accountability in a civilised and most effective environment.
Gareth: Being receptive to feedback is an important part of being a leader. However, one must also know when to stand their ground with regards to criticism, after all one is elected to serve members of the Oxford Union, not those of other societies.
I would like to make clear that I would not have invited Carl Benjamin or Tommy Robinson to begin with. However, once decisions are made and invitations made, I believe it is worse to reverse course to rescind an invitation. That compromises the Union’s credibility with future invitations even when those guests are credible. Of course, this depends on how severe the failings of the invitees in question are – ultimately, the best guiding principle is that of preserving the credibility of the Union, now and in the future.
Victor: The Union cannot keep existing in its own bubble, constantly at war with the wider university community. I want to rebuild those relationships through common sense, better judgement, and a more grounded approach to leadership – one that actually listens to members and brings people back into the institution rather than pushing them away.
Hamza: The decision to invite speakers should rightly sit with the President elected by the members, but this should not mean that dialogue with societies is cut off. I would be happy to sit down and talk with those concerned with the Union’s conduct so their voices can be heard. Objections should be considered on their own merits, and speaker invitations should be handled with seriousness and sensible judgement.
Anything else you might like to add.
Liza: I have stood through many things that happened in the Union and have seen its effects and consequences. What I found is that the culture of the Union is built around the people who contribute to it. Together with my team, I want to inspire a culture of integrity among its people, I hope that the institution as a whole can improve as well.
Gareth: Two things. Firstly, vote with your conscience. Read all the manifestos and vote with the candidate that you believe is going to be the best president rather than what someone else tells you. Your vote is important and if you would like to put your membership to good use, you should exercise your voice. I believe that my organisational experience, character and fresh perspective make me the best candidate for the Presidency. I hope to have your vote, but will be just as happy if you let your own voice be heard through your ballot!
Secondly, candidates always make the point that the Union is in chaos and that they are the one to fix it. I would encourage voters to ask themselves when the Union’s troubles began, this is not a recent phenomenon that can be tied to any particular Presidents’ term. You should vote for someone who you believe has been uninvolved in any of the Union’s drama and someone who has the competence to fulfill their promises.
Victor: This election is ultimately about whether members believe the Union can recover from the instability and controversy of recent terms. I believe it can – but doing so requires competent leadership, intellectual seriousness, and institutional responsibility. Having spent the past year working in real-world political strategy and public affairs during a national election cycle, I believe I can bring the experience and judgement this moment demands. That is the campaign I am running. #RETURN
Student Life
How an Oxford undergraduate made a name in choral music
For most undergraduate composers, a debut album remains a distant ambition. For Christopher Churcher, a music student and finalist at Lady Margaret Hall, it has already become a reality. His album Moonrise, a collection of choral works recorded with Somerville College Choir, has earned national attention, including being selected as BBC Radio 3’s Album of the Week.
The path to Moonrise began long before Oxford. Christopher started composing at the age of ten or eleven, shortly after beginning piano lessons. But rather than sitting down to compose, Christopher’s primary catalyst for writing music was a reluctance to practise scales. Instead of working through assigned exercises, he found himself improvising melodies and chord progressions at the piano. Eventually he began writing those ideas down.
Music entered his life through several different routes. Growing up in Birmingham, he joined Birmingham Cathedral Choir as a child chorister, learning to sight-read and performing music several times a week. Later, after his voice broke, he moved away from singing and towards orchestral performance, taking up the bassoon and playing with youth orchestras. When he arrived at Oxford, he expected his future to lie primarily in orchestral music. Instead, it was choral music that transformed his direction.
That redirection, sparked inside Somerville’s chapel, is the thread that runs in a more or less straight line to Moonrise. The turning point came towards the end of his first year. Christopher attended one of the college’s contemplations, reflective services that combine music, poetry, and readings. Listening to the Somerville College Choir perform, he experienced what he describes as an epiphany.
“I just had this sort of epiphany that I’d been missing choral music from my life for so long,” he recalls. “I realised that that was where I needed to be.” Although he had spent years pursuing orchestral performance, the artistic language that ultimately felt most natural was the one he thought he had left behind. Through Somerville College Choir and its director, Will Dawes, he rediscovered a musical tradition that had shaped him as a child.
That relationship would eventually become the foundation for Moonrise. The choir provided a collaborative environment in which Christopher’s compositional voice could develop, serving as his “most kind of significant collaborators to date” who have “have hugely inspired the way that [he] write[s]”. Looking back, he is clear that the album would never have existed without Oxford. “This album only happened because I was in the right place at the right time with the right choir and the right director”, he says.
Yet Oxford’s influence extends beyond performance opportunities. Christopher speaks of the university as a creative ecosystem whose value lies in its intellectual diversity. Although he studies music, much of the poetry featured on Moonrise came through conversations with friends studying English and modern languages. The degree itself, meanwhile, exposed him to ideas that challenged his assumptions about what composition could be.
While rooted in the choral tradition, Christopher’s music draws inspiration from far beyond the classical canon. He speaks enthusiastically about artists ranging from Joni Mitchell to contemporary popular musicians. Rather than treating classical music as a sealed cultural category, he approaches it as part of a wider musical landscape. Oxford, he says, “removed any sort of prejudices that [he] had internalised from studying GCSE music”.
But, of course, Oxford isn’t all positive for composition. Christopher is careful not to romanticise the experience. “Oxford really gets in the way of composing,” he says bluntly at one point. The Music degree (like any Oxford degree), he explains, leaves little uninterrupted time for sustained creative work. Unlike a conservatoire education, his course does not centre composition itself. Despite this, he views Oxford as a productive tension, rather than a mere obstacle. The demands of the degree may limit the time available for composition, but they also expose him to ideas, texts, and people that continually enrich his creative work. “Whilst sometimes I can feel like I’m fighting against the degree a bit to find time to write and compose”, he reflects, “it’s so great because the degree is so stimulating”. Oxford, in his view, has been a place where academic study and artistic practice constantly inform one another.
The result is a compositional style that balances sophistication with immediacy. His creative process is surprisingly architectural. Before writing notes, he sketches large visual timelines on sheets of A3 paper, mapping emotional trajectories, climaxes, textures, and harmonic developments. He compares the process to designing a building.
Describing his composition process, he says: “I’ll sit there and think, okay, I’ve got five minutes. Where do I want the high point of the piece to be? How can I create a sense of catharsis for the listener?” The language is telling. Even when discussing structure, Christopher returns repeatedly to emotional experience. Composition becomes a carefully planned emotional journey, which leads him to reject the idea that composition is inherently intellectual. Instead, his music is fundamentally personal and autobiographical. “I think actually that does make me quite different to some classical composers”, he says. While some composers prefer distance between their work and their personal lives, he actively embraces vulnerability. His music functions almost as a form of emotional testimony.Nowhere is that clearer than in the third Pride Motet. Christopher says, “I put my heartbreak and my love and my humanity into that piece”.
For Christopher, the goal when composing music is to create music that anyone, regardless of their background in classical music, can listen to and appreciate. Asked how he would describe Moonrise to someone without a classical background, he avoids technical language entirely. Instead, he speaks about emotion. The album, he says, is an attempt “to express human emotion” and to create atmospheres that listeners can inhabit regardless of their musical experience. The words he chooses to describe the music – “warm, comforting, atmospheric, emotional, sensitive” – reveal a composer less concerned with intellectual display than with human connection.
As he prepares for the next stage of his career, including a move to Germany and new commissions for choir and orchestra, that commitment remains unchanged. The success of Moonrise has given him confidence that audiences are responding to the values that matter most to him: emotional truth, accessibility, and connection.
Moonrise emerged from precisely that conviction. Beneath its carefully crafted choral textures and ambitious artistic vision lies a simple idea: that music is at its most powerful when it communicates something real. It is an idea Christopher has cemented in his professional repertoire because of Oxford – because of a choir he wasn’t looking for, a director who became a collaborator, and a degree that left him fighting for time even as it gave him plenty to write about. That belief, and that drive to make music accessible, seems likely to remain at the centre of whatever comes next.
Student Life
‘Scenes With Girls’ and complicated female friendships
Scenes with Girls deserves to be seen as one of Labyrinth Productions’ (Rosie Morgan-Males and Emily Cullinan) most impressive accolades. It displayed the tension inside a female friendship to such a believable extent that at points the audience were silenced entirely. It felt particularly relevant given this year’s right-wing coverage of an emerging “angry woman” who refuses to conform to established beauty ideals, creating the concern amongst men that she may, horror-of-horrors, renounce them entirely.
The play centres the friendship of flatmates Tosh (Juliet Taub) and Lou (Sanaa Pasha), and their ex-flatmate Fran (Georgina Cooper), and forces the audience to consider what it means to live as a feminist in today’s day and age. Each character symbolises a varying degree of conformity to the standard “narrative” – the conventional life path ascribed to women which lacks space for female platonic intimacy, and foregrounds the pursuit of heteronormative romantic relationships. Lou persistently seeks sex with men, but wishes she could leave her body as it happens, Tosh chooses not to associate with men at all, and Fran becomes the object of their ridicule as she, in their eyes, allows herself to be dominated by her boyfriend.
The play questions whether following the narratives we’re fed makes us flawed. Underlying the flatmates’ attempts to define a new feminist consciousness is a sense of sexual competitiveness written into their psyches since “girls’ school”, and ironically it is Tosh who chooses the “desire to be desired” over forging an alternative lifestyle with Lou, briefly doing a “really good impression of a girlfriend” before the two reunite. This production was remarkable for its ability to use laughter to make the audience think. Lines which were instantly funny, such as Taub begging her boyfriend to repeat himself and him saying “you’re so fit”, prompted reflection on the reality of women allowing men’s assessment of their physical appearance to dictate their happiness. Hearing conversations after the performance’s end made me certain that this production will have an enduring impact on viewers’ understanding of heterosexual romance.
The actors’ versatility prevented the physically intense emotional scenes from losing pace, and Rosie Morgan-Males’ stellar directing allowed the audience to observe when each friend was craving the other’s approval. In such an intimate relationship, tension was physical. Blocking made evident to everyone but Lou that Tosh wanted her undivided attention. Lou’s incessant mentions of sex made Tosh’s shoulders visibly slump, and her dissatisfied expression at times where Lou seemed more focused on her phone gave context to later anger. Later, having been persuaded that she ought to renounce men entirely, Lou is placed behind Tosh so that the audience can notice her hopeful looks as she asserts to Fran that she no longer wants to talk about boys: in a weak imitation of Tosh’s all out separatism, Lou murmurs that she now finds them “gross”.
Cooper as Fran was a comedic highlight, and Morgan-Males’ choice to push her over-enthusiastic reactions to extremity was well enacted. Cooper’s focus was commendable: the audience could see that while constantly smiling, Fran was also constantly listening, never looking away from the relationship between the two women. This made her later assertion that she “is not stupid” and sees herself worthy of pursuing their feminist lifestyle believable.
Pasha too is a fantastic emotional actor and it was in her character’s moments of defeat that she shone most. After Tosh confronts her and explains that she is obsessed by “the shit version of love they [men] give you”, her physicality destabilises and for much of the rest of the play she appears untethered, at one stage collapsing on the floor. The sense that she is struggling to avoid a total breakdown was impressively acted, her eyes glazing with tears as she tells Fran that she feels “mad”.
Taub was impossible not to watch, especially in moments of climactic anger. Her ability to move between a cynical “dead-inside” attitude and brutal anger was phenomenal. In particular, her dogged confrontation of Pasha had the audience visibly uncomfortable.
The embodiment of the joy as well as pain within Tosh and Lou’s platonic relationship was a highlight. No holds-barred descriptions of Tosh’s sex life, in which the men were always viscerally denounced – “the conversational equivalent of a nosebleed in a swimming pool” – were interspersed with tableaus that convincingly represented the pair as two friends placed firmly in our generation. Non-sensical jokes were thrown at each other while sat apart engrossed in their phone screens. In the parts of the script where their friendship was strongest they sprawled their limbs across each other. It was these unspoken moments that made their friendship seem most real: jokingly poking each other’s legs, or wrestling each other to the ground.
The actors’ boldness and commitment to every movement gave the play its glowing quality. Their hugs – most memorably after Tosh demands that Lou “dig into this” – successfully transferred an appearance of platonic passion. Alongside whole-hearted physical intimacy, the toilet at the back of the stage was an effective way to demonstrate the lack of boundaries between the characters. The lack of bodily privacy between the two was reflected in its openness to the audience, with some of the most compelling dialogue delivered by Tosh from the toilet seat. In an extremely powerful exchange taking advantage of this set-up, a visibly defeated Taub asked “am I mentally ill?”.
The “messiness” of the physical intimacy was well complimented by the set, with clothes strewn across the floor. It felt like an illusion to Tracey Emin’s My Bed in an era where women’s lack of total cleanliness is no longer seen as shocking. The simplicity of the costumes (relaxed tops and tracksuits, designed by Clara Woodhead and Mimi Finney) were another indicator of the friend’s closeness.
The script, like female friendships themselves, is complicated, but the actors tackled it with professional quality. It is rare that a student production is capable of making an audience both laugh out loud, and fall completely silent. To use a cliche, it was jaw-dropping.
Student Life
Jacinda Ardern and eight others awarded with honorary degrees
William Hague, Chancellor of Oxford, conferred nine honorary degrees in today’s Encaenia ceremony. The recipients include former New Zealand Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern; actress and theatre director Adjoa Andoh MBE; and literary critic and host of Finding Your Roots Henry Louis Gates Jr.
The other honorands are tennis player Billie Jean King; electronics engineer and inventor of blue LED Shuji Nakamura; Nobel Prize-winning economics professor Daron Acemoglu; Birmingham Royal Ballet director Carlos Acosta CBE; biochemist Katalin Karikó, whose mRNA research contributed to the COVID-19 vaccines; and former CEO of GSK Dame Emma Walmsley.
The procession of recipients and senior members of the University walked from Exeter College to the Sheldonian Theatre, where the ceremony took place, around 11.20am. Earlier this year, the Chancellor conferred eight honorary degrees in a Special Honorary Degree Ceremony intended to commemorate the beginning of his Chancellorship.

Encaenia takes place on the Wednesday of ninth week of each Trinity term, and sees the conferral of honorary degrees on recipients selected by the Congregation, a body of over 5,000 staff and academics. The University website describes these awards as “the most prestigious awards the University can confer”. The ceremony is traditionally followed by a lunch, hosted by All Souls College for over 100 years, and a garden party. It has been a constant feature in the Oxford calendar since the 1470s.
Dame Jacinda Ardern GNZM is one of the most prominent honorands this year. As the Prime Minister of New Zealand from 2017 to 2023, she was praised by international media for her leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year, Ardern joined the Blavatnik School of Government as a member of the World Leaders Circle, alongside former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
Adjoa Andoh MBE is another recognisable face among the recipients. An actress from Bristol, she has performed with the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company, and is an honorary fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. In recent years, she has played Lady Danbury in both Bridgerton and Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story, the latter of which included a wedding scene filmed in Merton College Chapel.
Dame Emma Walmsley DBE is the only recipient to also be an alumna of the University. She studied for an MA in Classics and Modern Languages at Christ Church, later working at L’Oréal. From 2016 to 2025, she was the CEO of GSK, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, and is the first woman to lead an international pharmaceutical company.
Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. is one of the several Americans awarded today. An academic at Harvard University, he rediscovered the manuscripts of the earliest known African-American novels and is the director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research. Professor Gates has also built a successful television career as the host of Finding Your Roots, in which celebrities are presented with their ancestral histories.
Past notable honorands include Nelson Mandela (1996), Dame Judi Dench (2000), and Sir Tim Berners-Lee (2001).
-
Crime & Safety4 weeks agoAll contestants taking part in Strictly Come Dancing 2026
-
UK News3 weeks agoUK defence spending plan ‘well short of what’s required’ and harder choices needed, says John Healey – UK politics live | Politics
-
Oxford News4 weeks agoCo-op full list of stores with late night World Cup hours
-
UK News4 weeks agoJohn Healey resigns as defence secretary in disagreement with Starmer over spending – UK politics live | Politics
-
UK News4 weeks agoTwo arrests and three police officers injured in protest at asylum hotel
-
UK News4 weeks agoGermany v Curaçao: World Cup 2026 – live | World Cup 2026
-
Crime & Safety4 weeks agoEngland transplant team lift the Four Nations trophy
-
Crime & Safety4 weeks agoKing Charles and Camilla absent from Oxfordshire royal funeral
