Stores at the Westgate Centre closed on Sunday 24th January ahead of the 40-year-old shopping centre’s redevelopment. Many of the other stores within the centre have closed over the past few months because of the phased closure plan. 

Primark will remain open until February 13th, when the whole centre will close to the public. Sainsbury’s and the public library will remain open throughout the duration of the building work. 

The full redevelopment is set to cost £500 million, and will include the creation of some new homes. The centre itself is likely to open in October 2017. The plans, which were released in December, also include the creation of around 1,000 new cycle spaces, slightly fewer than the 1,500-2,000 that were said to be necessary by local campaigners. 

The plans for the new Westgate Centre estimate it will create £440 million worth of investment and create a total of over 4,000 jobs. Sara Fuge, Development Manager for the Westgate Alliance, told Cherwell, “Westgate Oxford will bring a new, world-class shopping and leisure destination to Oxford. Once open in October 2017, it will transform the west end, creating significant benefits for the local economy and boosting footfall to the city, benefitting the area as a whole.” Once finished, it is said that the Westgate will also feature a cinema and an area for rooftop dining. The alliance behind the redevelopment also plans to work with the city and county council to raise awareness of the jobs available.

However, some students have expressed concern about the cost and effects of the redevelopment plan. One third-year lawyer remarked, “So many people are currently priced out of living in the city, and surely such a huge shopping attraction will only heighten this problem. Although it might create jobs in the long run, it’s hard to see how anyone will be able to both live and work in Oxford.”

On Your Doorstep, OUSU’s homelessness campaign, told Cherwell, “Oxford is already a completely unaffordable city for many, with the average house costing 11 times the average salary. Particularly after yesterday’s decision to cut £69 million from the county council budget, Oxford’s priority should be building more affordable housing, not another shopping centre.” This comes after a protest on Tuesday against the local council’s choice to cut money from the budget for homelessness services in Oxfordshire.

Other students were much happier about the development taking place. Louise Taylor, a third-year historian, said, “I’m very happy that Oxford will finally be getting a good shopping centre, but sad I won’t be here to actually enjoy it. I think it’ll make Oxford a much nicer city; it lagged behind quite a bit with shops. Although I was especially sad about the loss of Poundland; it was amazing for trashing supplies. 

“At least Primark will stay open.”

—

Analysis – Harry Gosling

The redevelopment of the Westgate Centre is now underway, and in many ways this represents an exciting time for Oxford. The city is booming, and as it does so, it is attracting more investment and generating more opportunities for Oxford’s residents. The new Westgate will undoubtedly have significant economic benefits: it will create jobs, boost spending and attract yet more people to Oxford. 

Yet the redevelopment of the shopping centre is also emblematic of a wider, perhaps somewhat concerning trend, in many urban centres: gentrification. This trend, grounded in the economic attractiveness of urban city centres, is causing property prices to rise and forcing lower-income families and small to medium size businesses out of city centres, resulting in a rising proportion of wealthier residents in city centres.

For some, gentrification is largely inevitable – a result of the economic and social climate in urban environments. City centres are often seen as the engines of economic growth: for individuals, cities off er jobs and opportunities aplenty; for businesses, city centres off er large and often growing markets in which to sell their products. These two processes mutually reinforce each other too. Cities often attract the youngest, the brightest, and the most ambitious; London is an obvious example of this phenomenon. Businesses are therefore attracted to city centres not just to sell their products, but to recruit the best talent too.

The result of these two forces is rising demand, particularly for property, and soaring prices in city centres. Yet we are well within our right to question whether this process of gentrification really is as inevitable as some suggest. In particular, could we, should we, be doing more to halt the process of gentrification?

Many would argue that we should be making more of an attempt to halt urban flight, and the gentrification of many parts of Jericho and other parts of Oxford. Yet whilst the redevelopment of the Westgate Centre is indeed indicative of the broader process of the gentrification in Oxford, it should not necessarily be the focus of student attention.

We must move beyond the familiar stereotypes of gentrification. A new Westgate Centre with more expensive shops means exactly that: a redeveloped shopping centre with expanded shopping choices. Other factors, such as inadequate levels of housebuilding, strict planning laws and vacant land, play a considerably more significant role in limiting affordable housing.

Students should welcome the redevelopment of the Westgate Centre – it’s a sign that Oxford is succeeding economically and it will undoubtedly improve and expand the choices available to students. Embracing the new Westgate Centre does not imply an ignorance of the issues surrounding gentrification and unaffordable housing. These issues have their own causes, distinct from the redevelopment of Oxford’s main shopping centre.

The notion of gentrification is not an illusion; small businesses and lower-income families are being forced out of some areas of Oxford as a result of the rising cost of living. This is unfair, and the Oxford student body must do more to speak out against unaffordable housing in Oxford. Whatever the answer is to slowing, if not halting the process of gentrification in Oxford, criticising the redevelopment of the Westgate is certainly not the solution.

A former student of the local Cherwell Academy School is alleged to have become a member of the Islamic State group (IS). Labelled ‘Jihadi Jack’ by a number of news agencies, including the Mail Online, Jack Letts denies being a member of the Islamic State group. The former Oxford resident, aged 20, is thought by some to be living in the IS-occupied city of Raqqa with an Iraqi wife and a son, Muhammed.

Claims that their son has joined the Islamic State have been refuted by his Oxford-based parents. Speaking in an interview with The Guardian, his father stated that “Jack never had a weapon, never posed in a photo with a weapon, but every article mentions it.” He went on to describe his response to media coverage of his son’s situation, saying, “It’s all insinuation, forcing connections that don’t exist.” In an earlier discussion with The Times, his parents said that he had told them that he was in Syria as long ago as September 2014.

Mr Letts has been depicted in Facebook photos at the Tabqa Dam in Syria, famously thought to be one of the main hideouts of IS’ leadership. The emergence of this photo has prompted questions over to what extent he has been engaged with the terrorist organisation.

Classmates of the organic farmer’s son have spoken about their experiences of him. Described in The Independent as “very much the class clown” and “liked by a lot of students,” Mr Letts is described to have been an avid Liverpool Football Club fan, who prior to his conversion to Islam was known to have drunk alcohol.

Thought to be a fan of the street artist, Banksy, Mr Letts is rumoured to have first taken interest in Islam during the Arab Spring in 2011. He is subsequently thought to have attended Oxford’s Madina Masjid.

Over time, it is thought that the young convert to Islam became of increasing interest to the local authorities. It is understood that the police had raided his family home two times before he left, confiscating laptops and mobile phones. The police, however, do not seem to have found any evidence that he had broken any laws.

Mr Letts’ parents, speaking to The Guardian about how he learned Arabic, said, “He dropped out of school and taught himself Arabic on his own because he wanted to be useful; said he wanted to help medical staff but had no medical skills.” When he first left Britain in 2014, he is believed to have told his parents that he was traveling to Kuwait to study Arabic.

Mr Letts himself has made it clear that he is not a member of IS. In correspondence with The Independent over Facebook, he described how he felt about his media coverage. “It’s sort of awkward when the media thinks you’re ISIS and you’re not,” he said. Speaking about his frustration with the way the British media covered converts to Islam, he said, “The formula with the media is simple: English guy became Muslim + went to the Middle East + followed Islam = ISIS + eats babies x evil.”

In a case where many of the facts remain uncertain, there has been concern in Oxford University’s Muslim community that Jack’s case represents another case of the national press jumping to conclusions about the behaviour of young British Muslims. Sameer Farooq, OU Islamic Society’s Media and Student Politics Chair, brought this story to Cherwell’s attention because of the lack of clarity of the case. Cherwell has spoken to a number of Oxford students who would like to remain anonymous who have said that conclusions about Mr Letts have been drawn too soon.

Writing in response to the media coverage, the leaders of Oxford’s four leading mosques have released a statement in which they expressed their support for Mr Letts’ family. The statement reads, “We are deeply shocked and saddened to hear from reports that the individual named as Jack Letts has travelled to war-torn Syria.

“Although the exact nature of his visit has yet to be confirmed, our thoughts and prayers are with the Letts family in Oxford, at what must be a very difficult and distressing time for them.”

Moving on, the leaders maintained their commitment to the handling of extremist behaviour in the Oxford Muslim community, saying, “Mosques in Oxford have measures in place to promptly report any form of extremist and suspicious behaviour, and such measures will continue to be developed and implemented in liaison with and following advice and guidance from local law enforcement authorities.”

A motion has been proposed to LMH JCR to support one day of meat-free meals each week in the canteen.

The JCR noted that meat production has had a considerably negative impact on the environment and that canteen menus revolve around meat dishes. 

Members of the JCR who were in opposition to the motion cited that it could potentially force college staff to also forego a meat option. 

It was also proposed and discussed that it could be more productive to reduce meat over several days rather than banning meat entirely, which would reduce the overall impact while still maximising choice. Leo McGrath, a member of the LMH JCR, wanted to introduce this modified option as an amendment. 

The original proposal is set to go to a college-wide referendum.

McGrath told Cherwell, “Personally I was pleased with this outcome, at least more so than a JCR vote, as it seems fairer and more democratic. I do however think that it would have been better to make the amendment I wanted, and reduce our environmental impact just as much while maintaining some semblance of choice. I don’t think it should be the place of the JCR to make political ‘statements’ unless the consensus is near unanimous, especially where there is a com-promise available which has less of a negative impact while retaining the environmental aims of the motion. That said, the referendum will be a decent solution.”

If the JCR opts to introduce Meat Free Mondays, it will join a number of other Common Rooms, including Wadham SU and Lincoln JCR.

University College JCR has unanimously passed an emergency motion condemning an “access” event, which welcomed Radley College students to University College.

Michael Slade, who proposed the motion, condemned the decision of the College to host a “very expensive public school that represents privilege” to an access event, calling it “indefensible.” Rose Lynch, who seconded the motion, argued that “it is sending bad message by being presented as access work.” 

It was alleged at the debate that the College paid for a member of staff to give a talk to the Radley College students and a tour by a University College ambassador, with a complementary lunch. Slade stated to the JCR that while Radley students “should be able to look around,” it seems “silly College should spend money helping to perpetuate their privilege.” 

Radley College is a boys’ independent boarding school in Oxfordshire, which currently charges fees of £11,475 per term. 15 of its pupils received Oxbridge offers in 2015, down from 16 in 2014. Among its notable alumni are ex-Poet Laureate Andrew Motion, and former England Cricket Captain Andrew Strauss.

Oxford Univeristy’s website states that it delivers over 3,000 access events per year, spending over £5.6m per year in the process. The website claims, “We recognise that some groups of students will require different types of support when preparing to apply to Oxford, and our programme of UK and international outreach work reflects this.”

A St Hilda’s first-year student told Cherwell, ‘‘This is a scarcely believable incident. I mean you have to seriously ask yourself, if a place like Radley College is getting help with access, who on earth doesn’t need it? I think we all know this is absurd.’’

Radley College has been contacted for comment.

This week saw the European Union debate shift up a gear in Oxford. On the evening of last Friday, Oxford Students For Europe launched a campaign designed to persuade and mobilise students to vote ‘Yes’ to staying in the EU in the upcoming referendum. The event, held at Christ Church, attracted a turnout of around 100 people and involved speeches from Labour MEP Anneliese Dodds and the Liberal Democrat Lord Jonathan Marks. A set of committee elections was held on Tuesday of this week. Nominations were open for fewer than four days. 

The news follows speculation that David Cameron might hold the referendum as early as June 2016. Two co-chairs, who will direct the campaign, were elected by Single Transferable Vote on Tuesday night. Eilidh Macfarlane and David Klemperer ran on a joint ticket and were elected with 70 first preference votes to their rivals’ 45. Macfarlane, a student at Trinity College, is the former co-chair of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats and former organiser of a Better Together campaign in the Scottish Highlands. Klemperer, of St. John’s, is a former co-chair of Oxford University Labour Club.

Interestingly, the OSFE’s constitution was formulated by a provisional committee which included Macfarlane, Klemperer, and Henry Samuels, the current Oxford University Liberal Democrats Treasurer. Samuels, who acted as Returning Officer, presided over the election which saw his fellow provisional committee members take control.

Despite the prominence of Liberal Democrats in the campaign so far, OSFE has emphasised its bipartisan nature. Samuels urged that the Oxford ‘In’ campaign needed to be “both popular and cross-party” to have the best chance of success, explaining this was why it was made “a constitutional requirement that the two co-chairs of the campaign not be from the same political party.”

Macfarlane and Klemperer told Cherwell, in their first comments since assuming the leadership, that OSFE “is already a truly cross-party organisation with members of all parties and none competing in our elections. This range is reflected in our newly-elected committee: as well as ourselves as a Labour and Lib Dem co-chair team, Conservative members topped the ballot for committee.”

The OSFE co-chairs stressed that their aim is to engage “particularly with people who have not been involved in political campaigns before but believe that the UK is made stronger by its membership of the EU.”

Although remaining unaffiliated with the national campaign Students For Europe, OSFE has said it plans to work closely with both the Stronger In campaign and the European Movement “in order to play a part in the national campaign.”

The rival campaign, Oxford Students For Britain, also weighed in on the debate this week. Current President, Oliver Shore, appeared to relish the emergence of the OSFE. “We are pleased to see a free and fair debate on Britain’s membership of the EU beginning in Oxford,” he stated. “After nearly 40 years without consultation the British people are finally being allowed a say in whether they want to be governed by Brussels.” Shore went on to invite all students “who have become disillusioned with the prospect of continued membership of the European Union” to join him in the ‘Out’ campaign.

Since Friday’s launch of the Oxford Students For Europe, several student political parties have come out in support, affirming Macfarlane and Klemperer’s claims to being a cross-party movement.

The Oxford University Labour Club made clear it “warmly welcomes the launch of Oxford Students for Europe. 

“As an organisation with a pro-EU position, we look forward to a healthy working relationship with them and hope to see them on the campaign trail soon.” 

Oxford University Liberal Democrats, for their part, praised OSFE as “An excellent student initiative, bringing together people from across the political spectrum” and further that they intend to be “fully engaged both with OSFE and with the wider campaign to keep Britain at the heart of Europe.”

“Liberal Democrats have always preferred a less tribal way of doing politics, and we’re looking forward to being able to share a common platform with members of other parties,” their senior co-chair, Gareth Wilkes said.

The Oxford University Conservative Association re-emphasised its strict neutrality in its comment, telling Cherwell, “Considering the variety of views which our members have on the question of EU membership, OUCA has decided not to support either the ‘In’ or the ‘Out’ campaigns.

“[We pride ourselves] on being a home to all shades of conservative opinion and so [we] feel that this measure will allow us to continue our tradition of  incorporating as many different views as possible.”

Christ Church JCR this week debated a motion at a General Meeting to abolish the role of Ethnic and Religious Minorities (ERM) rep from its committee. The motion was rejected by the JCR with only eight votes in favour, 15 against. Many students chose to abstain.

The ERM role was created last academic year, having previously been rejected in Trinity 2014. The position has been a source of uncertainty since, with the position having been filled since Trinity last year by student Titus Badawi-Crook, whose official stance in the JCR elections had been opposition to the role’s existence and a pledge to do nothing with it.

The motion, which was proposed by second-year classicist Sebastian Hyams, stated that the JCR notes that Badawi-Crook “campaigned with the view that the role needed to be abolished. The JCR expressed, through the democratic process, its endorsement of those views. In complete contradiction to the expressed views of the JCR (GM HT 15), it has been advertised that an ERM [Rep] will be [elected] this term.”

In Trinity last year, a question in a Christ Church JCR survey about all aspects of student life, which asked whether there should continue to be an ERM rep, found that 54 per cent of self-identifying BME students were opposed to having an ERM rep.

One Christ Church JCR member told Cherwell, “To achieve our shared aim of reducing, indeed, quashing any racism in Oxford, it is my view that a traditional ‘rep’ is not the most efficient way to achieve this, and that it is crucial that attention be focused on initiatives like access to ensure that more minorities apply to Oxford; this issue is, lamentably, more pressing in colleges with unfavourable reputations like Christ Church.”

Discussing the motion’s failure, Hyams commented, “The JCR’s 2015 survey made clear that a majority of people in college who identify as an ethnic or religious minority were opposed to an ERM Rep for various reasons. Further, the current rep was elected on a mandate that he would be nothing but a placeholder.”

JCR President Luke Cave and the outgoing ERM rep both declined Cherwell’s request for comment.

St Anne’s College JCR discussed a motion on Sunday 24th January that proposed to announce the Common Room’s opposition to the Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) campaign.

The motion resolved to, “publicly announce [the Common Room’s] opposition to the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, and any form of politically motivated iconoclasm in the University and its constituent colleges/PPHs”; “urge Oriel College to keep the statue of Rhodes and its associated plaques in their current position”; and, “lobby other JCRs to make resolutions opposing the Rhodes Must Fall campaign.”

An email sent to the JCR encouraged those in “opposition of the motion” to come to the meeting “in the interest of having a fully engaging, intellectual debate.”

Matthew Kirtley, who proposed the motion, told Cherwell, “Generally, I’m antipathetic towards the pernicious identity politics and attempts at playing at inter-generational guilt which seem implicit in the Rhodes Must Fall campaign. That served as my initial motivation why I opposed RMF, and why it was so easy for me to jump on board with the motion. The rationale for the motion is that we both believe that the statue must stand pretty sincerely, and we think a lot of other people do along with us. I’d like to get those people to remember that they’re not alone in their sentiments, and they have every right to respond to the RMF campaign.

“The key principle at hand is that we don’t believe the cultural heritage of Oxford or Britain should be removed based upon our entirely contingent contemporary moral and political norms. I don’t see that the statue of Rhodes has any attached moral standing to it, other than the commemoration of his philanthropy towards Oriel and the University. It serves to acknowledge his donation, not to acknowledge his social, moral, or political views. Heritage is important as it serves to tell to us and posterity what helped influence the institutions that used to and still exist, and also tell us of the people who shaped said institutions. Who’s to say in a thousand years Rhodes will be as controversial as he is?”

There was spirited debate at the meeting, resulting in 18 pages of minutes. A constitutional technicality precluded voting. As a result, an Emergency Meeting was held Wednesday evening to resume debate on the motion.

At the same time, St. Anne’s Middle Common Room held an Emergency Meeting to vote on one motion to establish “support for the ‘Fall of Rhodes’ as outlined by RMFO,” and another to acknowledge “that distinctive issues are faced by BME students at the University of Oxford and…that more should be done on a university and college level to: increase the representation and voice of BME and other minority members of our community; and take action to address the concerns raised.”

After its meeting, St. Anne’s JCR told Cherwell, “St Anne’s JCR voted against a motion calling for a public announcement by the JCR of its opposition to the removal of the statue of Rhodes from Oriel College.

The debate on the motion encompassed a wide range of views, and the failure of the motion to pass does not amount to an official statement that Rhodes must fall. There were 34 votes for the motion; 97 against; six abstentions; one spoilt.”

On the other hand, St. Anne’s MCR passed its motions. In a statement, the Common Room said, “This body of approximately 300 members voted on 26 January 2016 to unequivocally support the aims and goals of Rhodes Must Fall movement in Oxford.”

They continued, “We further stress that we support the wider aims of the Rhodes Must Fall movement: diversifying curriculum to include scholarship outside of the Western canon, increasing representation of Black and Minority Ethnic students and staff at the university, and lastly, relocating Oriel’s Cecil Rhodes statue into a museum to place it in proper historical context.

“St. Anne’s College was founded as a woman’s college in 1879 and became coeducational in 1979. It was founded specifically on politically progressive values of inclusion and equality. St. Anne’s MCR is happy to join with fellow colleges at the University of Oxford in supporting Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford.”