‘Life means life’, Just Stop Oil and prisons

Many issues arose from the speeches made at the recent Conservative Party conference.
Questionable plans to make studying Maths and English mandatory until 18, disregard for
the climate crisis, use of blatantly transphobic language, the description of immigrants as a
‘hurricane’, and of Winston Churchill (who despite his great speeches was famously racist,
even for the standards of the 1930s, and a poor military strategist) as this country’s greatest
ever leader were all areas of concern.
However, one issue that I have not seen much written about is this government’s attitude
towards the criminal justice system. In his speech, Rishi Sunak said that his conservative
government would introduce mandatory full life sentences for those who have committed
‘heinous’ crimes (sexually sadistic murders and premeditated murders of children). I don’t
disagree that child murderers should be locked up for life, but mandatory sentencing is a
clumsy policy which necessarily cannot take account of the circumstances of a particular
case and a particular offender. Of course some murderers should be locked up for life, but
to say that all perpetrators of heinous crimes should be given mandatory full life sentences
before the evidence has been examined is poor policy. It also misses half of the point in
prisons which is rehabilitation. Prisons are not there to just throw away the worst of our
society and leave them to rot indefinitely: they also there to reform, so they can emerge as
better people.
This harshening of prison sentences for murderers accompanies stricter laws for protestors,
with Rishi Sunak clamping down particularly on ‘Just Stop Oil’ protestors. At a time when UK
prisons are at crisis point, should the government be focussing on sending more people to
prison and locking those people up for longer? Should they be introducing mandatory life
sentences for whole categories of crimes which will inevitably lead to large number of
prisoners serving life sentences? Should they be increasing sentences for individuals taking
direct action to campaign for more radical action to address an issue of global concern? I’m
sure I would be furious if my morning commute was delayed by some people crawling in
front of my car, but is it really a good use of this country’s increasingly limited prison space
to lock these people up for multiple years?
In their most recent reports, HMP Bristol and Leeds reported bad overcrowding with two
prisoners often sharing cells designed for one person. They also reported high levels of
violence, prisoners spending up to 22 hours per day locked in their cells, and a lack of any
sort of meaningful activity or education. This is not just the case for Bristol and Leeds, and it
only takes a quick read of some reports of UK prisons by the Chief Inspector of Prisons to
know that it is a national crisis. Overcrowding is such a problem that portaloo-style cell
blocks have had to have been built in some institutions, and some estimates predict that in
three years, without significant reform, this country will run out of space to house inmates.
‘Life means life’ misses half of the point in the prison system. Prisons are there to keep
criminals away from society, but they are also there to reform and rehabilitate those who go
in. Increasing sentences without funding this country’s understaffed, overcrowded, poorly
facilitated criminal justice system will lead to nothing but reoffence and unchanged crime
rates.

It’s A Bar, Not A Bank. Stop The Nonsense

To say that British society is built on tradition is a gross understatement. We are positively obsessed with it. I find it all sickening at the best of times: heaven forfend we close a street outside a school to stop children being run over, but did someone say Royal Wedding? Well then, get those cones out and the emergency chairs, we’re having a street party, like in the good old days! Some traditions can be quite fun, though: cheese rolling, welly throwing and bog snorkelling spring to mind.

But amongst all the fetishisation of aristocracy and the slightly silly village fete activities there is one incredibly important pillar of community and society that has traversed thousands of years. The Pub. A place for communities to come together, for a hearty meal, a good dance and for world-changing ideas to be dreamt up at the table and (probably) swiftly forgotten by the next morning. Headlines have come and gone proclaiming the latest existential threat to this bastion of civilisation: the drink drive limit, off licences, letting children in, the indoor smoking ban, Tim Martin, lockdowns aplenty and despite some of these threats being more credible than others, it has tragically been reported that around two pubs are closing their doors every day. However, there is a plague threatening the very fabric of what pubs we still have left…
For the greater good of society we took a break from pints, pies and pickled eggs and pretty much
everything else during the pandemic and we learnt to keep our distance from one another, queuing a few
paces apart and often in long snaking lines around supermarkets and such, and this was indeed necessary in the pub at one point, but it must stop now. Bars are long (or wide, depending on your perspective) and normally staffed by a handful of people who have the freedom to roam from point to point (or pint to pint, if you will) to reach the taps, bottles and glasses they need. What on God’s green Earth, then, possesses people to stand in a single file queue? Bar etiquette is an art form in itself, get your elbows out, get in, eye contact with the bartender, give a nod or a knowing smile, not too enthusiastic though, maybe a little laugh and joke with your fellow thirsty revellers to show how casual and fun you are (even though really they’re your sworn enemy, all that stands between you and your pint and pork scratchings): it is all a crucial part of the pub experience, and we all have a duty not to let it die, keep the good tradition alive.

For heaven’s sake, please, stop queuing.

Why 15 minute cities are the future

The idea is simple: 15 minute cities are meant to be community-led cities that aim to have all human essentials within a 15-minute walk or cycle from any part of a city. This would include education, shopping, healthcare and any other activities one needs in daily life. The goal is to get people out of their cars and into their communities while trying to implement walking as the most used mode of transportation.

The idea took off in light of the Covid-19 pandemic when lockdowns showed us what an inconvenience commuting is and how precious time outside is. The concept is being implemented now in places like Paris, Melbourne and cities in South Korea.

MP Nick Fletcher of the Conservative party has called them an “international socialist concept,” in an effort to put down the initiative that is rising in popularity within the Labour Party. The conspiracy theories put forward include the idea that governments want to control our every move, capture us in our neighborhoods and never let us leave these 15 minute communities. To say that this is a ridiculous idea is an understatement. The idea of a walkable city can have so many positive effects including better health, quicker access to essentials (medicine, a bar of chocolate at 10pm after you’ve had a long day). 

One only has to take a look at some North European cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen to understand how moving away from cars is not only good for the environment, but also for mental health. Let’s take The Netherlands for example: a country whose economy took off so much that between the end of the second world war and 1972, the average income of a Dutch household increased by more than 200%. This led to people purchasing more cars and cities struggling to keep up. As Amsterdam wasn’t a city built for cars, they looked towards the US to improve their roads. As the city was struggling to adapt to the increase in people using cars, road accidents soared and people started protesting. Slowly, people started giving up their cars and demanding bike lanes. For the past 50 years, Amsterdam has been focusing on the people living there instead of the cars. Nowadays there are so many bike paths in the city that most places are more easily accessible by bike instead of driving.

Funnily enough, it seems that people from Amsterdam are also some of the happiest drivers. According to a study from 2016 by Waze, the Netherlands is the best country to drive in. Some of the categories for rankings included traffic and road safety and the Netherlands did incredibly well in all of them. This shows that providing people with bike paths and other modes of transportation doesn’t automatically mean cars are extinct. Given the choice, I think most people would choose simplicity.

The problem in the UK is that there are not enough bike paths in big cities. Only the bravest of people take their lives in their own hands and dare bike through London. Throughout the UK, there have been traffic restriction trials in order to test out the idea of traffic free areas in cities. This led to a lot of pushback in Oxford, where, according to the BBC, councilors started receiving death threats because people had a “genuine fear that they might be locked in their own homes.” Fear not, no one has been imprisoned in their house in Oxford, residents were just worried that their lives might have to change. Lives will indeed have to change, but probably only for the better. If restrictions start being implemented, that will increase demand for different modes of transportation and therefore easier access to places. Once our needs change, our cities will have to adapt.

To wrap it up, 15-minute cities are revolutionizing urban living, bringing everyday necessities closer to home. Despite political pushback and wild conspiracy theories, remember that in Amsterdam, they’ve got more bicycles than there are tulips in spring! So, as these cities gain ground, let’s pedal our way toward a healthier, more accessible future.

Where does the Future of the LGBT Community in the Conservative Party lie?

It’s safe to say that the 2023 Conservative Party conference has certainly been eventful. Among many developments, perhaps the most striking was Rishi Sunak’s remarks weighing in on the trans rights debate which has increasingly dominated political discussion. In the most unequivocal disavowal of LGBT rights of a Conservative Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher, Sunak asserted it is “common sense” that a “man is a man and a woman is a woman”, and that Britons are being “bullied” into believing that “people can be any sex they want to be”. Clearly, the conference has marked a significant shift to the social right for the party— a development watched with trepidation by Conservatives who belong to the LGBT+ community, who have found themselves with a choice between party loyalty and commitment to their identity.

It should of course be mentioned that many LGBT+ individuals, both within the party and outside, have gladly accepted this policy, throwing support towards organisations such as the LGB Alliance, which deliberately excludes the trans community in its advocacy. Conversely however, many LGBT+ Conservatives object to the change in rhetoric, and are facing significant self-reflection. Among them is openly gay Tory member Andrew Boff, who was escorted out of the conference by security guards during Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s speech for heckling, in a calm tone of voice: “There’s no such thing as gender ideology”. Later on X, he commented that he believed the Home Secretary’s comments were “bullying trans people and the LGBT community”. Boff won support from other queer Tories, including openly gay Conservative MP Elliot Colburn, who urged the Prime Minister to stop “demonising” trans people if they hoped to win the forthcoming general election. He also asserted that the average voter is more concerned about affording heating their home during a cost of living crisis, rather than whether trans children should be able to play sports.

Evidently, the conference heralds a tricky future within the party for many LGBT+ Conservatives. On one hand, it’s difficult to sympathise with those who have chosen to align themselves with a party that has not always been entirely sensitive to LGBT+ rights— indeed, it is not a choice to be born gay, but joining the Conservative Party very much is one. Undoubtedly, many LGBT+ Conservatives have opted for political ambition and the pursuit of influence, which is more accessible to them in the Tory Party than in any other more gay-friendly parties— Labour, for instance, haven’t won an election in 18 years.

However, this dichotomy of being queer in a largely unsupportive political organisation has been easier to ignore in the past than in the current ‘gender-critical’ political climate. Indeed, one can argue the Party has always been somewhat liberal on social issues. In August of this year, the LGBT+ Conservatives Group hosted a drinks reception celebrating ten years since Prime Minister David Cameron’s Tory government legalised same-sex marriage— a reminder of the party’s more tolerant past.

But the problem for this minority seems increasingly worrisome, as many queer conservatives find themselves ostracised by other members of the LGBT+ community. For instance, during the conference, a group of LGBT+ Conservatives were thrown out of The New Union bar in Manchester’s Canal Street gay village— a potential wake-up call that their conflict of interest is becoming increasingly untenable. Similarly, when the official LGBT+ Conservatives X account tweeted a photo of drag queen Kate Butch comparing their appearance to Tory MP Tom Tugendhat, they replied calling the group “ladder-pulling, community-disgracing bunch of ghouls”. 

Therefore, figures like Boff and Colburn find themselves stuck in a party veering further to the right, and meeting the demands of a progressively antagonistic public discourse led by ‘gender-critical’ figures such as Laurence Fox and JK Rowling. Polls show that the Conservatives will likely be trounced in the next general election, which could be perceived as a repudiation of the Party’s adoption of gender ideology. However, it is difficult to predict how much further the rhetoric from Conservative politicians will go, which begs the question for this afflicted minority— when’s the right time to get off?

Are Films and TV Having a Creativity Crisis?

David Tennant coming back to play the titular character in Doctor Who. Hugh Jackman having one
last hurrah (again) as Wolverine in Deadpool 3. Disney shovelling out remake after remake of their
classic tales. Are we relying too much on nostalgia to fuel our entertainment?


It definitely seems to be the case. Recently, film and TV have been heavily relying on that good old
feeling of nostalgia to itch that spot in our brains and to make us go “that’s Tobey Maguire as
Spiderman!” And yes, I would agree that it’s a delight to experience your childhood characters back
on screen after a long time. But as the entertainment industry seems to be losing all original ideas
for this blatant nostalgia bait, is that particular itch worth scratching?


Let’s have a look at why bringing back old favourites is such a big thing. The idea isn’t new, but it has
been revolutionised in the past decade. In the past 7 years we’ve seen Disney put out 11 remakes of
their classic films, Indiana Jones has come back for one more adventure twice in the last 15 years,
Marvel have been heavily leaning into their “multiverse” to bring back classic characters, and
Warner Bros. can practically smell the money that they will make from their Harry Potter TV remake.
And that’s the reason. Money. And lots of it.


In 2019, the remake of The Lion King grossed over $1 billion. Bringing back Tobey Maguire and
Andrew Garfield as the titular character, 2021’s Spiderman: No Way Home made $1.9 billion. David
Tennant and Catherine Tate’s return to Doctor Who after starring together 13 years ago has
generated the most attention that the show has gotten since Jodie Whittaker’s poorly received run
as the Doctor. The fact of the matter is that nostalgia brings lots of attention, and even more money
(and as we all know, these corporations love money).


But what does this mean for the creativity of the film and TV industry?
It means a lack of originality.


Film and TV corporations are putting a hefty amount of their resources into their remakes and
resurrections, so less money, effort and attention is being put into new, exciting stories. Of course,
we are still getting great standalone films to this day – the recent successes of Barbie and
Oppenheimer shows that original works are still highly loved and wanted. In fact, it shows that we
need more of them. Imagine the amazing, original, directorially-driven films we could get if the
entertainment industry was not hampered by this corporately-fuelled obsession with the same old
characters and stories.


And will this nostalgia infatuation ever end? Actually, it seems to be slowing down. The Little
Mermaid earlier this year grossed $569 million – a huge number, but much less than previous
remakes, and the film itself received less-favourable views than its predecessors. Similarly, Indiana
Jones and the Dial of Destiny made only $375 million on a $300 million budget, and with an extra
estimated $100 million spent on promotion, it’s a severe low compared to Disney’s expectations for
the film. Personally, I can’t see this deterring this focus on nostalgia bait for a while, with Disney
having planned another 10 live action remakes for the future, but it’s a step in the right direction for
new, original stories to take centre stage.


So, please, move over, Indiana – it’s time for a new age of cinema to take the spotlight.

Rugby World Cup 2023: Once again we’re seeing a two-horse race

As the dust settles on another epic weekend of World Cup Rugby, the chances of a northern
hemisphere team winning the World Cup for the first time since 2003 look all but over.
England are just about hanging in there, having been blessed with the most sympathetic of
routes to a semi-final. Both France and Ireland expected to lift the trophy, and though there
was nothing in it and either game could have ended differently, the southern hemisphere
titans South Africa and New Zealand prevailed. They showed exactly why they have won
two thirds of all Rugby World Cups. Tournament rugby is unpredictable, the stakes and
pressure are so high. So how do these two nations manage it so often?


For South Africa everything exists in a four-year cycle. They always save their best rugby for
the biggest, most important stage. Fans and administrators alike fully expect their country
to win the cup every time. Much is made in the Rugby world of the dangers of ‘peaking’ too
early, and yet again it seems as if, despite a loss to Ireland in the pool stages, the Springboks
have perfectly timed their push to the final.


The incredible physicality they bring to every game and their hyper-focus on the breakdown
make them a phenomenal knockout Rugby team. Armed with some of the world’s most
devastating backs, lesser teams with weaker coaches may have been tempted to veer from
their forward dominated game plan. But outside noise never cuts through to Rassie Erasmus
and his Boks.


There are few bigger challenges in the game than knocking out a host nation at their own
World Cup, and it’s no coincidence that the South Africans have managed to do this at the
Quarter Final stage in each of the last three editions. They revel in spoiling the party.
Following a helter-skelter opening 8 minutes, France looked like they may blow away their
opponents after a succession of immense collisions was backed up with the most aesthetic
handling. The Boks though, have enough World Cup winners in their squad to fill out a full
matchday 23. They composed themselves at a stage where few teams would have been
able, and hit back with an opportunistic try. This was the story of the half, as two rugby
heavyweights traded punishing blows. France were absolutely magic throughout, and must
have found it hard to believe that they lead by only three points at half time having thrown
every weapon in their arsenal at the visitors.


Come the second half, the tole of an epic first 40 minutes was clear to see. They were
unable to cut through the Springboks’ defensive line in the same manner. Fond memories of
Tokyo and Yokohama surely eased the nerves, as the Boks used all that experience to
manage the second half to a tee and win the game.


New Zealand benefitted from a similar wealth of knockout stage knowledge. Indeed, it was
veteran Sam Whitelock, playing in his 151 st test, who eventually turned the ball over and
broke Irish hearts after a desperate 36 phase assault. He is likely to find himself in another
World Cup Final, and should he win it, he will become the first man to win 3 World Cups.
Few would have predicted that was possible a year ago, when the All Blacks blew a 19-point
lead against England, in the dying embers of Eddie Jones’ tenure. Coach Ian Foster looked a
dead cert to be sacked before Jones, but the faith shown was resoundingly rewarded in one
of the great Test matches.

The victory was as much to do with former Ireland Head Coach Joe Schmidt, now part of the
All-Blacks brains trust, as it was Foster. Schmidt brought Irish Rugby out of the dark ages,
but he is now responsible for one of its biggest setbacks. A first phase try, that obliterated
arguably the best defence in the competition at a crucial stage in the game, had Schmidt’s
blueprint all over it.


The game-plan required sterling individual contributions, namely from Ardie Savea and Sam
Cain who almost certainly had the best performances of their lives. World Player of the Year
Josh Van Der Flier, ever present Peter O’Mahony and world beater Caelan Doris never made
an impact, in the biggest game of their careers.


It’s hard to ascertain why it didn’t happen for Ireland. Some believe in the curse of the
Quarter Final, with Ireland yet to reach the semis at any World Cup to date. A team that had
won everything there is to be won in the years leading up to the tournament, and produced
the goods in the pool stages just weeks prior against Scotland and the Springboks, didn’t
look their usual self under the intense scrutiny of a knockout game. New Zealand, by
contrast, looked at ease throughout. They have been there and done it before. The fact
Ireland had beaten them three times in their last four meetings was utterly irrelevant to a
nation that goes the distance in World Cups almost every time.


Barring nothing short of a Rugby miracle, England and Argentina too will exit the
tournament and the final will see old foes do battle once more. Another World Cup where
the Northern Hemisphere nations were simply the appetisers, eaten and done away with
before the real main course business began, looks likely. That said, Ireland and France will
only get better. They have some fantastic players coming through, and will take some
beating four years down the line in Australia. England too, will surely be improved.
But the privilege of having players who have been there and done it in the knockout stages
cannot be understated. That experience, in games of the finest margins, is the difference
between progression or not. It is not something you can fake, or stumble upon. It must be
earned. For now, South Africa and New Zealand will continue to have that advantage, until a
team good enough comes along and rips it off them.

Social media warriors are wading in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and it’s harmful for everyone

The events which have unfolded over the past few weeks are heartbreaking and devastating for all those involved. The loss of life and human rights violations which we have seen in the news bear a heavy weight upon readers and the journalists alike. Naturally, being such a heavily politicised topic, we all have something to say about it – and while political debate is healthy and to be encouraged, sharing deeply misinformed commentary in a sudden spur of passion is not.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a recent phenomenon – it has a deeply complex history which can be traced back to before the First World War. In 1917 Britain liberated Palestine from the Ottoman Empire – establishing the British Mandate of Palestine, and promised Palestinians the future establishment of an independent Arab state. Although no formal declarations were ever made, British correspondence with Arab leaders between 1915-1916 implied that Palestine would be included. Less than two years later, Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration formally promised the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the state of Palestine.

It is here the main problem arises – the British promised Palestine to both Palestinians and to Jewish people as a new homeland. By 1918 these conflicting hopes were backed by strong nationalist movements – Palestinian Nationalism and Zionism.

Throughout the British Mandate period, Palestine experienced significant population growth – from increases in Palestine’s indigenous population as well as Jewish migration. Competition for land ownership amongst an increasing population heightened nationalist tensions, and in some cases led to riots and ethnic violence. Because the British Mandate of Palestine was always intended to be a temporary measure of governance, the United Nations (UN) devised UN Resolution 181 – the partition plan for Palestine. This called for the division of Palestine into one Jewish and one Arab state – a controversial idea which led to a catastrophic war between Palestinians and Jews in 1948.

This brings us to the present day. For decades the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been centered around the struggle for statehood and national identity. It is a conflict concerning ethnic national identity, not a conflict of religion. There is no place for antisemitism. There is no place for islamophobia.

More and more of us are using social media to access the news. A survey from statista.com breaks down just how reliant we have become on social media – 78, 65, 61, and 55 per cent of respondents from Nigeria, Chile, Greece, and Hong Kong respectively use social media to access the news. Granted, not all of these respondents entirely trust what they view – however, they continue to access the news in this way. In countries including Poland, Croatia, and Portugal, over 50 per cent of adults admitted to getting their news from social media.

As we become increasingly dependent on social media for our political education, it is vital that what we share and view is based on fact not fiction.

Designated a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, Japan, and Egypt – the Islamist militant organisation ‘Hamas’ is not representative of the Palestinian people. Hamas may have won the parliamentary elections in Gaza in 2006, however, no free elections have taken place there since. The most recent poll from July 2023 found that 70% of Gazans would prefer the governance of Palestinian Authority (PA) which is a governing body under the secular political party of ‘Fatah’.

The portrayal of recent events in Palestine and Israel on social media is worrying. Supporting Hamas’ attack on Israel as they murder, rape, and abduct Israeli men, women, and children is not being pro-Palestine – it is being antisemitic. Supporting the Israeli government’s retaliation as it bombs innocent civilians and terminates vital supplies of electricity, gas, water, and food in Palestine is not being pro-Israel – it is being anti-Palestinian.

When we partake in supporting these narratives on social media, this encourages prejudice against people in our communities, and it brings about very real consequences. When political activism pages with thousands of followers on social media advocate these antisemitic or anti-Palestinian beliefs, it emboldens people of all ages and of all beliefs to justify and act upon their prejudices. Since Hamas’ first attack in Israel, the UK has seen 89 reported cases of antisemitic behaviour, with 50 reported from London alone – including the appearance of an image of Adolf Hitler on a wall in central London.

The mindless reposting of infographics on social media without taking the care to fact-check them first sustains this seemingly endless cycle of hatred, prejudice, discrimination, and violence. Remaining politically engaged is our best chance at living in a more peaceful world, but ultimately, we will not achieve this if we continue sitting behind our screens, posting carelessly.

On this week: 23 October – from the archives

On this week‘ is a new weekly column by our news editor Josh Elgin which offers a window into the past through the pages of The Gryphon archive. Exploring the events and stories that unfolded during the same week in history – enabling a deeper understanding of the context that shapes our present.


24 October 2003

TWENTY YEARS AGO – the halls of residence Eldon Court, which at the start of this year was evacuated and ordered to close after a damning fire report, was still under construction.

Rob Hamblin reports that the developers of Eldon Court received a backlash from residents and were investigated by Leeds City Council after they built more floors than they had been given permission.

A fresh planning application was submitted in December 2003 which was approved the following year, with the building eventually opening in August 2005.

In January, up to 300 students were told to evacuate and the building was ordered to close after a report by the West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service found that there were “inadequate means to ensure the means of escape can be safely used in case of fire” and insufficient means to reduce the risk of fire spread.”

Northend Management, the owners of the building, were expelled from the ANUK and Unipol National Code in May 2023. Rooms were advertised for the current academic year, though universities in the city were asked by Unipol to inform students that the hall was no longer certified by the code.


21 October 1983

FORTY YEARS AGO – the University of Leeds and Leeds University Union created a “positive anti-apartheid” scholarship to pay for all necessary expenses in order for black South African students to study in the city.

In 1983, South Africa was run under apartheid, a system of institutionalised racial segregation and discrimination that was enforced from the white minority population from 1948 to 1994.

The rights and opportunities of black South Africans were severely restricted during this time which led to significant social and political inequalities.


26 October 2007

SIXTEEN YEARS AGO – the University of Leeds asked Facebook to take a student group down after its members were accused of harassing a lecturer at the University of Leeds.

The anonymous lecturer told Virginia Newman and Charlotte Griffiths that they were subject to “wall to wall” comments by students who were dissatisfied with their module.

After a complaint was made, the University of Leeds asked Facebook and the students to take down the posts.

Facebook, which was created in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, had 50 million users in October 2007 and the iconic like button wouldn’t be implemented until two years later.

The platform now has 2.9 billion active users and its moderation policies have been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny, as it attempts to protect users from harassment and stop misinformation from being shared whilst also upholding freedom of expression.

A spokesperson for the University of Leeds clarified that its policy was not to “monitor” students’ social media, but if an issue was raised they said “we have a duty of care to our staff and students and the overall reputation of the University.”

With thanks to Special Collections which is located in Brotherton Library visit their website to learn more about the collections they hold.