A new United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report based on Oxford research has found that hidden social, environmental and health costs from agrifood systems globally were up to $12 trillion in 2020. Significantly, costs from limited productivity and lifestyle disease associated with unhealthy eating represented almost 75% of total costs.
Hidden environmental costs, including nitrogen pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, accounted for 20%. Social costs related to poverty represented 4% of hidden costs. The report features analysis by a senior researcher in food system economics with Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute (ECI), Dr Steven Lord, which importantly breaks down the distribution of these costs.
Health costs linked with unhealthy diets were mostly found in high-income countries, such as the UK and Germany, whilst environmental and social costs were more prevalent in low-income countries. Dr Lord highlighted an important discrepancy: “The majority of the quantified hidden costs are generated in high- and upper-middle-income countries, in particular in the United States and the BRIC countries. However, the greatest economic burden falls on low-income countries.”
Indeed, future hidden costs could account for over a quarter of low-income countries’ gross domestic product.
The FAO report aimed to address uncertainties in quantifying pollution and future costs to better inform policy, utilising a model developed at the ECI. Potential damage of these costs indicates how pressing their consideration in future policy is. Dr Lord reflected how “$12 trillion is about 33 billion 2020 PPP dollars per day, which is equivalent to a June 2022 Pakistan flood every day or a September 2022 Hurricane Ian every four days.”
Costs identified by the study were measured by the reduction in welfare associated with a decline in purchasing power, with all currencies treated equally by the measure of purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars in 2020.
The report comes weeks before the next UN Climate Change Conference COP28 in December, which will for the first time place a major focus on agrifood systems. However, agrifood systems pose a unique set of specific challenges beyond carbon dioxide emissions, such as nitrogen pollution and methane emissions, which must be addressed with different policies.
Dr Lord has said: “For policymakers, reducing the increasing economic risk posed by agrifood systems activities…requires policies characteristically different to the decarbonization pathway required of other sectors.”
The economic discrepancy identified between which countries shoulder agrifood costs also comes ahead of a crucial moment at COP28 for establishing a working loss-and-damage fund after initial COP27 agreement, to assist lower-income countries often at the forefront of climate change. COP28 provides an opportunity to develop policies to mitigate against risks from agrifood systems that recognise the unequal weight of their hidden costs.
As a child, my dad once got a ketchup bottle for Christmas. It is a story that inevitably resurfaces every year as we sit around the Christmas dinner table, discussing the presents we have received – the good ones as well as the not-so-good ones. As the story goes, he once made a passing remark to an aunt about liking ketchup, and it appeared she took the comment to heart.
Another genuinely bizarre gift that comes up in family conversations is the bra travel case I received when I was twelve or thirteen. At the time I didn’t own nearly enough bras to put in it, nor did I have many exotic places I needed to transport them to. A few years later I opened a Christmas present from a not-to-be-named family member – a new notebook. Upon opening it, I found there were already multiple entries inside. “Dear diary,” one of the entries read, “Today I got dumped”.
In the wake of these terrible but amusing presents, I decided to try to discover what it is that makes a good present. In my search, I stumbled upon a video by Van Neistat called The Rules of Gifting. In it, Van (the lesser-known brother of famous NYC vlogger Casey Neistat), lays out his ‘Holy Trinity’ of gifting rules. What the Holy Trinity decrees is that a gift should always have at least two of the following three qualities present (see what I did there).
The first of the Holy Trinity is thoughtful. Thoughtful presents are ones that are specific and show you have thought about what the person you are giving it to likes. A good example of a thoughtful gift I still think about is a CD I was given several years ago when I had just started driving myself to college. My car, a tiny Ford Fiesta, was equipped with a radio and a CD player but no aux outlet. When one of my friends noticed this, they bought me my favourite album on CD. Very thoughtful.
The second of the Holy Trinity is nice. Nice should be self-explanatory. If the present is something you know the receiver will enjoy, then it is a nice present. Niceness, whilst fairly abstract, should be the easiest of the Holy Trinity to achieve. It is a property found in any good-quality, well-made object. If you are really stuck, Van’s rule of thumb is to buy something which is cheap but expensive. There are certain things that are usually cheap, but if you spend a little more money than usual, they become nice. Take chocolate, for example. Chocolate is cheap, but nobody wants just a Snickers for Christmas. Yet, investing ten pounds in some artisan chocolates from a local store should be relatively affordable and result in a gift that is undeniably nice.
The third of the Holy Trinity is made. Made is a little more ambiguous, and the hardest to achieve of the three. What made means is either making a gift yourself or leaving a personal mark on it. Books are an easy way to incorporate an element of made-ness since you can write a short message on the inside cover. Adding the receiver’s name, a short greeting, and the date can go a long way. If you are creative, then homemade jewelry, home-baked goods, playlists and old-school CD mixes, as well as crafted, knitted or crocheted items are all examples of made gifts. Of course, making gifts isn’t always easy in practice. If you’re not very creative nor artistically inclined like myself, then there is often the option to add someone’s initials or other details on items like notebooks, wallets, or bags. Made means that your hand is in the gift in some way.
Van includes an additional rule to made gifts which I should also mention. Gifting an object that you have made entirely yourself can be a risky business. Whilst it is usually true that the gift receiver will like something that you have made yourself, there are always cases when this can go wrong. You don’t want to give someone a large painting that won’t fit in their tiny student house, no matter how good it is. Therefore it is a good rule to only give homemade gifts that are smaller than your hand. This way, it won’t take up too much space, and they won’t feel too bad if they don’t like it.
Thoughtful, nice, and made. Two of these together will make a good present. But if you can check off all three, that’s the Holy Trinity of gift-giving.
Van adds that if you listen to the people whom you need to buy gifts for, they will usually tell you exactly what they want. If you are shopping with a friend and they make a comment about their favourite perfume or a book they have been wanting to read, make a mental note of it. Or, better still, write it down to save for later. This way you will always be prepared for what to buy for someone.
Buying gifts for lots of people – especially at Christmas – can certainly be overwhelming; hopefully this advice helps.
Expedition Cyclops, which explored the Cyclops mountains in Indonesia and included researchers from the University of Oxford, rediscovered Attenborough’s long-beaked echidna which was last recorded in 1961 and feared to be extinct. Alongside Oxford scientists, the expedition was composed of students and researchers from Indonesian NGO YAPPENDA, UNCEN University, Papua BBKSDA, and Re:Wild. With the help of Papuan guides, the team of scientists trekked the harsh rainforest conditions for weeks, with 80 trail cameras and multiple ascents totalling over 11,000 metres. They faced venomous species, illnesses, hostilities, and an earthquake, but as the expedition neared its end, the echidna still remained elusive.
On the last day, with the last images on the final memory card, the team hit the jackpot with their now widely-publicised footage capturing the mammal with “the spines of a hedgehog, the snout of an anteater, and the feet of a mole.”
Named after broadcaster Sir David Attenborough and the half-human half-serpent Greek echidna, the unusual creature is a monotreme, an ancient and rare order of mammals consisting of five living species including the platypus. They notably lay yolky eggs instead of giving birth. In addition to being critically endangered, the echidna also eludes scientists’ gaze due to its nocturnal and burrowing habits.
Oxford researcher Dr. James Kempton credits the locals for this breakthrough. He said in a statement: “With the help of YAPPENDA, we have spent years building a relationship with the community of Yongsu Sapari [village]. The trust between us was the bedrock of our success because they shared with us the knowledge to navigate these treacherous mountains, and even allowed us to research on lands that have never before felt the tread of human feet.”
In addition to sighting the echidna, the team also discovered hundreds of other species such as a shrimp that dwells on trees. When a member of the expedition accidentally fell into an obscured entrance, the team discovered an unexplored cave system that harboured new species such as blind spiders and a whip scorpion. They intend to name many of the species after Papuan members of the expedition.
A full-moon shaped circle of chairs awaits the audience. We’re directed to stand in the middle of the circle and one by one, characters step on chairs and surround us, and each time someone new speaks, the collective sway of our heads reminds me of a back-and-forth tennis match. The set itself is intimate, with stars dotted around the ceiling and a giant papier-mâché moon looming high on one side of the studio. All of this is telling: This is How We Walk on the Moon is not a play to be observed but to be immersed in.
Seven personal truths told in the form of carefully crafted monologues, it’s not at first obvious that there are seven different writers behind the scenes. Of course, the characters mostly do not interact or seem aware of each other’s existence, each delivering an earnest monologue from somewhere deep-seated in their distinct personal histories. But the script is hardly sporadic patchwork as one may expect when there are so many writers- it flows with a purpose, and what are at first unrelated storylines begin to merge.
KFC Lover’s (Wong Man Shun) newfound pining for a co-worker draws parallels to the love that Eli (Felix Kerrison-Adams), the romantic poet, has been professing in devoted rhyme for the first half of the play. The reaction of loved ones to Midnight Pirate’s (Susie Weidmann) grand voyage fantasies reflects those who constantly undermine Jodie’s (Juliette Imbert) physical pain from fibromyalgia, telling her it’s all in her head. And perhaps Ammonite’s (Ethan Bareham) fixation with the fact we’re all standing on such an ancient planet compares to Jealous Bitch (Hope Yoon) and Hairdresser Dave’s (Cosimo Asvisio) obsessive storytelling.
Despite seven unique personalities to convey, the stellar cast all hold their own. In particular, I’m compelled by KFC Lover’s story. He has been traumatised at the hand of his near-evil boss, burned by a steamer. Four small holes are branded into his arm as if he needed any more reminding. It’s clear that the damage done by the burns- physical and mental- are constant, maybe even irreparable, and yet, he stays at his job, now yearning for tenderness and affection from his new co-worker Dani. It’s painfully realistic, but the script also left room for humour, the occasional KFC quips providing the break for some comedic relief.
Each character’s story is halted by the introduction of another’s – cautious glimpses are offered into their minds, more withheld for gradual reveal- but the play is far from disjointed. They’re held together by one common glue- the all-too-human desire to at last be understood. It’s as if when one person starts speaking, another is finding ways to relate. Each character endures varying levels of alienation and isolation, but as Ammonite reminds us, we’re all suffering the same human experience on this planet, alive at the same time.
While there is no clear happy ending, there is a feeling of closure by the climax and final moments of the play. Without noticing, the characters had become my friends, secrets and pain spilling out after being swallowed down too long, and finding their vulnerability was not met with judgement but the understanding they’d longed for: this is how we co-exist. Even when we think, ‘Oh no, the sky is falling’- maybe there is someone out there for us.
“It’s not for nothing that they call Pevek the city of romantics and daisies”, local resident Irina Shuvalova tells the camera. Taking part in a documentary for broadcaster Current Time (Настоящее Время), she is wearing both a puffer coat and hoodie in a living-room-cum-greenhouse in the Soviet-built former port town. Nestled cosily within the Arctic Circle on Russia’s north-eastern coast, the city’s panoramas showcase characterless flat blocks, dilapidated industrial enterprises, and – to Irina’s credit – patches of daisies battling against the brutal winds from the East Siberian Sea.
The discovery of uranium and tin deposits in the 1940s made Pevek’s position in the Chaunskaya Bay perfect for the delivery of equipment, but once the mines were closed and the gulag workers had left, industry in the town dried up. Optimism returned when Pevek became the home of Russia’s first floating nuclear power plant in 2020. The New York Times said it could be the ‘power plant of the future’, claiming it would employ 300 people which – although figures are currently unclear – would constitute a significant proportion of Pevek’s population.
And though Pevek seems unremarkable, and the Akademik Lomonosov (as the barge is named) does not look particularly inspiring, this development is an unlikely symbol for the unnoticed regeneration of Russia’s most remote districts.
At this year’s Eastern Economic Forum, an international conference aimed at encouraging foreign investment in Russia’s Far East, delegations from 63 countries including India and China discussed higher education, shipping, and Arctic development with their Russian counterparts. Almost 400 agreements were signed, with 41 involving foreign enterprises. The most notable was a joint deal between a Russian and a Chinese company who agreed to invest 5 billion yuan (£553 million) in the construction of an oil complex to straddle the border between the two countries, making exportation to China easier. Such a project is not only a result of closer cooperation between China and Russia, but is a response to a very practical concern over a decline in European demands for Russian energy.
Russia’s reorientation to the East was articulated more explicitly by the deacon of the Chongyang Institute of Financial Studies, a guest at the conference. Dr. Wang Wen said that Vladivostok could become the next Hong Kong, explaining that “the non-Western world welcomes Russia warmly, with both hands, but Russia must also turn its face to the non-Western world.”
For his part, President Putin showed concordance with his guest’s expectations, saying that “the role of the (Russian) Far East for our country, for her future, for the position of Russia in a multipolar world, is exceptionally important”. This evocation of the ‘multipolar world’ goes beyond a ‘turn to the East’ in describing the Kremlin’s hopes to establish new, more numerous centres of power which will re-balance the world order, bringing about the end of Western hegemony. Whilst votes of abstention and support for Russia at the UN among the global south are perceived as the source of this apparently inevitable process, the Russian Far East offers an increasingly promising launchpad in Asia for collaboration with non-aligned and anti-Western states. In particular, the Far East’s role on the domestic stage is perhaps the more significant compact.
One piece from state news outlet Ria Novosti describes ‘heliskiing’ as “snowboarding down untouched snowy slopes with a helicopter ride up to the beginning of the descent”. This is just one of the many activities you can participate in on a VIP tour of the ‘remote regions’ run by the Cosmos Hotel Group, who are planning to build hotels, chalets, and glamping sites from scratch in Russia’s Far East.
The President of the Russian Union of the Travel Industry told Ria buoyantly that demand for domestic tourism has risen by 30% in the last couple of years. He conveniently omitted the qualifier that Russians are currently prevented from visiting most international destinations by visa bans and a lack of flights abroad. Much like the Chinese transnational oil project, promotion of domestic tourism is yet another solution to the ramifications of the invasion of Ukraine.
Branding the Far East as a thrilling wilderness is a consistent effort that goes beyond state-sanctioned tour group adverts. It has been given a prominent stage at the dazzling Forum-Russia exhibition in Moscow, which is currently showcasing Russia’s regional cultures and landscapes to the capital’s population. One particular event was dedicated to recognising the winners of the ‘Far East – Land of Adventures’ travel competition, where the Grand Prize was awarded to a local who completed a 500-kilometre solo-kayak trip around the bay of Vladivostok. Winners in the ‘Winter Travel’ category, all of whom were from the Far East, respectively completed a seven-day bicycle hike, a dog sled race, and a horse trek along the Kolyma highway (the latter notable for sharing its name with the Stalinist gulag).
Promoting residents of the Far East themselves as courageous and determined is perfectly synchronised to enormous billboards showing Russian soldiers with the defiant text ‘We will succeed in everything!”. The war and civilian life in the East become ever more subtly intertwined.
But the more immediate practical function of the competition was articulated by the convenor (a deputy Prime Minister) who praised the winners for the videos which they had to submit as part of their entries, which would encourage others to go “in the right direction, to the Far East”. The promotion of internal travel on multiple fronts seeks not only to provide the remote regions of Russia with economic inspiration, but contributes to the Kremlin’s designs for a more tightly connected, inward-facing nation.
Taken at face value, the prevailing message of the exhibition is one of peaceful harmony between the diverse ethnic groups of the Russian Federation. Great emphasis is placed on the ‘native people’ of each region, and the Chukchi of the northeastern district of Chukotka performed traditional dances, played local instruments and sung in their native tongue to great applause in Moscow. Beaming indefatigably, these members of dance troupes and ‘ethnorock’ bands provide a useful example to be employed whenever the Kremlin wishes to highlight how it not only tolerates but celebrates the cohabitation of different groups within its borders.
Such a narrative is even more chilling when you consider that the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics, as well as the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts have also got stalls at the exhibition, also supposedly demonstrating the Russian value of peaceful coexistence.
Does this suggest a consistency in policy for Russia’s West and East? The misleading ‘We don’t abandon our own’ doctrine, initially used in connection with the campaign in Kherson, arguably extends all the way to the North Pacific, as the Kremlin decides who constitutes ‘our own’ and how they might be enticed or coerced into greater integration into the Russian Federation.
But there is an obvious divergence in practice, if not in theory. So far, the Far East has only invited flattery; Putin voiced his admiration for Kamchatka after visiting the immersive regional stand at Forum-Russia, conceding that he had never seen anything so beautiful. Indeed, Chukotka’s governor (previously First Deputy Prime Minister of Luhansk) stated he hopes to replicate his President’s reaction in others, expecting that acquainting Muscovites with his region could foster greater ‘closeness’ between Russia’s East and West. Opposition to such ‘closeness’ in the sparsely-populated remote East is not on the cards, but the comprehensive vision of the Kremlin’s policies – aiming at greater integration and centralisation with Russia – is certainly worth noting.
For the inhabitants of the Far East themselves, the material benefits arriving in the region will have far more of an impact than the state’s verbal admiration; the governor of Chukotka recently announced plans to open the local ports to cruise liners, a new regional centre for instruction in the mining industry is being set up in Kamchatka, and state media reported just this month that the cheapest mortgages in Russia are to be found in its distant North East.
Whilst extreme remoteness, 69 days of almost complete darkness, and living by the ruins of a gulag may not sound immediately inviting, Pevek and the settlements of the Far East are being positively redeveloped and growing in attraction. Irina Shuvalova contrasts the deprivation of the 90s, when her daughter would peer into an almost-empty fridge and ask for bread and butter, with the vitality currently being channelled into her town. She celebrates the resumption of shipping activities, accompanied by the appearance of brightly-coloured painted murals on the flat blocks which have given Pevek a veritable facelift.
Last month Pevek even made it to the national news, as discussions over the construction of a second floating nuclear power plant have apparently begun. The memorandum quoted in the article was sent by the government to Rosatom (responsible for the initial barge), and lays out the importance of “ensuring the socio-economic development of the region” with a project which could both help in the extraction mineral resources, and provide energy to inhabitants of Chukotka.
Plans for a second floating nuclear power plant in the North Pacific Ocean are not necessarily the key for a dramatic uncovering of Putin’s plans for Russia’s direction of travel, and I do not predict mass exodus from Moscow, nor Vladivostok becoming the eventual state capital. Nonetheless, the efforts going into the regeneration and promotion of Russia’s remote districts are remarkable, and have clearly acquired a new significance since February 2022.
Historically, there has been no strong tendency to report on Russia’s Far East in the media, so the fact that these developments have gone under the radar is, in itself, not a surprise. But the difference between now and the decades that preceded the invasion is that our attention is being actively diverted towards Russia’s western border, away from the vast lands east of Moscow. This is a serious mistake, since it prevents us in the West from grasping just how far-reaching the impacts of the war are on the Russian population, and moreover how the Kremlin is seeking to mitigate them.
Paradoxically, by having our eyes so trained on events to Russia’s West, we risk ignoring what true relevance they have on the entire country, especially in the Far East.
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss spoke in a packed town hall at an event organised by the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) yesterday evening. Following strict security checks, Truss addressed the crowd and engaged in a Q&A, discussing her time at Oxford, talking about the pervasive nature of “woke ideas”, and how Oxford students had an important role to play in a “conservative intellectual revival.”
Truss read PPE at Merton in the 1990s and became President of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats in her first year, only switching to the Conservative Party the year she graduated. Her time as Prime Minister became the shortest in British history after she resigned on her 50th day in office with a 9% approval rate. This followed her government’s mini-budget proposal to cut taxes which caused financial upheaval and crashed the pound’s value to its lowest in history. Her short premiership was ridiculed by a livestream of a head of lettuce.
With around 400 in attendance, Truss walked into the speaking chamber to great applause. She began by stating that this was her first speech in Oxford since she left 30 years ago, adding that this was also the first OUCA event she hadn’t been “chucked out” for being a member of the Liberal Democrats.
Touching on her time at university, Truss stated that she came into Oxford as a Liberal Democrat believing in “freedom and low taxes.” However, after she “came across the woke brigade at Oxford” and was “censured for sexism for saying a sabbatical officer for women was patronising” her views took a more conservative turn.
A common theme across Truss’s speech was the importance of creating a new consensus in British politics regarding economic policy, with her stating that “we need reinforcement – we need to win the battle of ideas”, especially as she thought “the conservatives were losing the argument.”
Truss said that “lefties are more focused on your race, gender, place of origin or which group you’re from than your ideas or your beliefs” and that she was surprised to see these “nonsense ideas in big corporations, in the civil service” even after she began her professional life.
A list of ideas Truss condemned included the notion that being a woman or belonging to an ethnic group was important, that being ashamed of British history was mainstream, and that the “trans extremists [refused] to talk about basic issues of human biology, which we know to be true.”
Speaking of the US, Truss criticised “Bidenomics” for its high public deficit and declared that Canada was becoming a “woke haven” under Trudeau, eliciting a great laugh from the audience. She stated: “We are never going to be able to stand up to President Xi or Putin if we don’t have belief in our own values: Property, family, free-trade, individual rights”, adding that “the eco-nutters or the anti-capitalists are willing to stick themselves to roads. We need to be as determined to convince the younger generations as they are.”
When asked whether she thinks there is space for a fundamental reassessment of Conservative party policy, Truss said that “the argument we’ve got to win is that if you raise taxes, you get less tax revenue”. She criticised the Sunak government’s fiscal policy by saying that she wouldn’t “want to be in a conservative government that’s consuming 47% of our GDP, in a country where taxes are at a 70-year-high.”
Truss also defended the mini-budget that lost her the premiership, telling attendees: “We’ve seen that if those policies had remained in place, we would’ve had more economic success and the public finances would’ve been fine”. Conversely, Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor of the Exchequer under Truss, refused to let the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) release said forecasts.
When asked about the U-turn she had to make on the mini-budget, Truss stated that “I had to do that on pains of the markets going crazy. I was pretty much threatened point-blank that the UK wouldn’t be able to afford its debt if I went ahead with my program.” Putting blame on the fact that “we have a civil service establishment that doesn’t support lowering taxes or cutting public expenditure.”
Instead, she consistently criticised the OBR and the Bank of England for not believing in the same “dynamics” as she does, claiming that “all of the agenda is being set by the left” and that her brand of free-trade economics are the “only policies that work.”
Truss went on to defend Boris Johnson, calling him an “electoral asset” and saying that “we were crazy to get rid of Boris. To put Boris down was a fundamental problem of the Conservative party and anyone taking the job after that was going to have to fix that mistake.” She later highlighted that this was despite their differences: “He’s much more pro China and a Net Zero enthusiast than I am.”
When asked about the upcoming general election and the possibility of a Labour victory, Truss was not optimistic of their success, stating: “If Labour gets in power for a long time we’re in Argentina territory.” She added that “if they do get in government next year, they won’t stay in for very long.”
When an audience member questioned how she could blame the left when Labour opened up a 30 point lead in the polls under her premiership, Truss responded that she had “sought to change things in the right way” in every role she had. She explained that “in any cabinet role you have, you do not make the big call” and that although she was Prime Minister, she didn’t hold this role for very long.
In response to a question about young people, Truss stated that “it’s not inevitable that young people are Left wing,” claiming that many are just “frustrated with the status quo. She added that she’s not only against “identity politics”, but also against “age-identity politics”.
When an audience member questioned if Truss was a zionist, she simply responded with “yes”, eliciting applause from the front benches. When asked what she thought of affirmative action, she stated “I’m against it”. When then asked for further clarification, she repeated “I’m just against it”, later emphasising the need for a meritocracy.
Truss ended her speech by stating that problems like housing or pay could not be fixed until the fundamental issue of economic growth could be solved, receiving a large round of applause as she exited the room.
‘Nowadays all cats appreciate are coloratura,’ Salieri says gravely ‘like the rest of the Public’. This sums up Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus (which is currently playing at the Keble O’Reilly); there is the distinction between what the ‘Public’ appreciates, the musical genius of Mozart and Salieri’s unfortunate ability to recognise and be destroyed by knowing the distinction between the two.
Salieri is doomed to understand that Mozart’s work is better than his own in a world devoid of proper musical appreciation. He is gripped by guilt – The play is about the bitter rivalry between Salieri and Mozart, or, at least, the resentful rivalry Salieri had with Mozart and Mozart inadvertently suffering its consequences. The former is destroyed mentally by inconsolable malice and the latter economically and physically.
A play filled with death, self-destruction and violence cannot always be humorous. Amadeus has the appropriate amount of humour; when it is done it is done well and properly. We begin with the dynamic venticelli (Susie Weidmann and Joe Rachman) who sustain their wonderful energy throughout the show. Salieri’s ‘little winds’ are cheeky, unemotional and impish, the ideal addition to his lamentations. The emperor (Nicolas Rackow) and courtiers (Matilda Piovella, Will Shackleton, and Clement Marshall) also provide effective comedic relief. Highlights included a singing cat opening the second act, slut-drops and gyrating in time to the Queen of the Night aria and dancing done to no music.
Jo Rich’s Salieri is perfectly chameleonic. At the start of the play, Salieri is dramatically illuminated in a chair, he is old and dying and has the air of a traditional storyteller, severe but to an extent, affable. This continues in the first act and Salieri’s asides to the audience make us sympathetic to his rage against Mozart. It is in the second act that Salieri is transformed into someone irredeemable, filled with insatiable jealousy and a single desire to destroy Mozart’s life. Salieri’s compositions may have played second-fiddle to Mozart’s pieces, but Rich stole the show. With heart wrenching calls to God and a transition from honest worker to sleazy scoundrel, Rich’s standing ovation was well deserved.
Mozart (Poddy Wilson) is every bit the ‘giggling child’ Salieri condemns him to be. Wilson’s Mozart is the petulant genius who sees the world in an extraordinary way. Mozart and his wife’s, Constanze Weber (Molly Jones), absurd games that include spanking and crawling around on their hands and news are done convincingly and both have the lightness of children. Both Wilson and Jones are able to change from ridiculous scenes to powerful, emotional ones. Indeed, Amadeus demands breadth.
With imaginative music and Shaffer’s caricatures of historical figures, there is no need, and perhaps no room, for an overly elaborate set. Elspeth Roger’s set was simple and effective,with old chairs and tables that evoked the eighteenth century without distracting away from the plot. When coupled with Andrew Raynes’ lightning, the production’s landscape makes the intention of the characters clear. Effie Halstead’s costumes are decadent amazing; Notable pieces include Constanza’s white and blue pinstriped dress and Mozart’s many exciting coats.
When Salieri speaks about the surprising and incandescent oboe rising above the melody, we can hear it in the orchestra and while this is in part due to Mozart’s genius, it is also greatly helped by the robust, bright tone of the oboe. Indeed, the play would not be nearly as compelling if not accompanied by Mozart’s music, and the orchestra was delightful. Katherina Cavalieri (Lois Heslop) is fantastic, each snippet of the soprano leaves you wanting more.
Amadeus was true to Mozart’s genius and Salieri’s jealousy. It was often chaotic, ardent and sudden. It boasts a wonderful cast and is sure to keep you on your toes.
The final night of Amadeus will play at the Keble O’Reilly on Saturday, 25th November at 7.30pm. Tickets are available here.
Leo Buckley has been elected Union President for Trinity Term 2023, narrowly edging-out opponent Julia Maranhao-Wong by three votes. The election saw a significantly higher voter turnout in recent memory but came with more uncontested positions for the second term in a row.
The two candidates for the presidency ran significantly different campaigns. Maranhao-Wong, as part of her #Challenge slate, ran a campaign of “under-promising and over-performing”, previously telling Cherwell that she was “the only candidate that actually fulfilled any pledges made at Trinity”. Buckley, on the other hand, was an independent candidate emphasising professional experience in various areas and roles.
After his victory, he told Cherwell: “I’m humbled by the trust the members have placed in me to steer the Oxford Union, and am grateful for this opportunity to lead an institution I adore. I look forward to serving the members in Trinity Term 2024.”
Louis Wilson, Izzy Horrocks-Taylor, and Chris Collins won their uncontested elections for Librarian, Treasurer, and Secretary respectively, running as part of the #Challenge slate. All officer positions also received on average 236 RON votes, with a total of 709 such votes cast.
The following candidates for Standing Committee positions were elected: Mikeel Toosy, Lyle Hopkins, Aryan Dhanwani, Peter Chen, Amy Gilbride, and Robert McGlone. James MacKenzie, Saharsh Anand, Hamza Hussain, Shreya Bothra, Rachel Haddad, Anya Trofimova, Jenny Wright, Ashling Aisulu Sugrue, Yassin Hachi, Siddhant Nagrath, and Olivia Knight-Catalinete have been elected to Secretary’s committee.
This term’s election saw 987 votes cast, a notable increase from the 590 cast last term, with turnout dwindling in previous elections.
Two Corpus Christi undergraduates were stalked by a fellow student for over two years, despite frequent appeals to college authorities. The college procedure led to a confusing and frustrating process for the victims.
Mary and Sophie* were in their first year at Corpus Christi College, Oxford when a fellow student, Joe*, began giving them unwanted attention. By Trinity term of 2019, the situation had escalated. He made frequent advances, left many letters in their pidges and offered mysterious gifts, persistently following, messaging and staring at them. At times, he prevented them from leaving the college library by blocking them in the pews. He continued to confront and corner the women, attempting to see them multiple times each day and refusing to leave when asked. After the women appealed to the college for support, the Dean of Corpus Christi told Joe to cease contact with both women.
Over the summer and into Michaelmas of 2019, Joe continued to interact with both women, in person and online. Following continued conversations with Corpus administration, Joe was banned from the college site for two weeks at the end of Michaelmas and warned again to stop contacting Mary and Sophie. In Hilary term 2020, the ban was lifted and Joe resumed contact with the women. Reports of him persistently following Mary and Sophie around the college library ultimately spurred Corpus to hold a harassment panel.
One university, many procedures
Following Mary’s official harassment complaint, the Corpus Disciplinary Committee held a panel to discuss Joe’s behaviour and recommend further actions. Neither Mary nor Sophie were informed of the precise timings of the panel. Mary only discovered the panel had occurred when she wrote to the Dean with concerns about Joe discussing her harassment complaint publicly, even though she had been told to keep this matter strictly confidential. The Dean responded by stating that he could not control Joe’s actions, the panel had happened the day before and the outcome had not been determined yet.
The two women were eventually notified in person that the Committee had banned the accused from the Corpus campus and activities “indefinitely”. If Joe ever contacted them again, he could no longer remain a member of the university. Mary and Sophie were not given the verdict in writing. Corpus policy at the time, as detailed in the 2021 non-academic disciplinary procedure (NADP), stated that a “verbal report” is all that needed to be given to the student who brought forward the complaint. The University of Oxford Harassment Policy by contrast and the majority of Oxford colleges stipulate that the outcome of investigations and disciplinary panels should be provided to the reporter and the accused, including in some cases in writing.
The central University Policy includes a detailed procedure for dealing with harassment issues between students. Last updated in March 2019, the procedure stresses the importance of a timely process, continued communication and support for the accuser and the accused. The procedure also suggests strict penalties for non-compliance with penalties imposed under this procedure.
However, Oxford colleges are not required to follow the exact University policy. Instead, the University encourages the resolution and punishment of harassment cases “under appropriate college procedures while reflecting the principles of this Policy”. A university spokesperson told Cherwell that the University “has no role in advising colleges on complaint handling procedures”. The University as a whole addresses reports of sexual misconduct under Statute XI and the Student Disciplinary Procedure, and is also undertaking a review this academic year “to identify scope to improve its processes”.
Whilst many Oxford colleges have similar procedures dedicated solely to issues of harassment, Corpus Christi is amongst the minority of colleges which group all non-academic disciplinary offences under one common procedure. The college has guidelines for the treatment of harassment cases, but ultimately formal action is taken under the standard complaints procedure and NADP. The Corpus NADP, contained in the Junior Members Handbook at the time, states that a student can be summoned to the panel for offences ranging from “contravention of the College’s Information Technology Regulations” and interference with fire alarms to criminal conduct and violence.
“Appropriate action has been taken”
In Michaelmas 2020, Mary and Sophie complained to the college again. Joe was still involved in college football and had begun to harass Sophie’s boyfriend. In a subsequent meeting with the Dean and Dean of Welfare, the two women were told that Joe’s activities were not in violation of the rules, as football occurred off Corpus’ campus and Joe was targeting Sophie’s boyfriend, not Sophie herself. Mary and Sophie added in the meeting that the disciplinary verdict they had been verbally informed of barred Joe from participating in any college activities.
However, Mary told Cherwell that since “we had nothing in writing when questioned on this, [the Deans] just said that we misunderstood and that was never said”. The women were frustrated by this lack of clarity and believed that “the point of the harassment panel outcome was to not just separate us, but also to provide punishment”. No action was taken by Corpus against Joe at that point. The women heard nothing from Joe for months during pandemic lockdowns.
When Joe resumed contact with Mary in the autumn of 2021, following her through the streets of Oxford, she notified Corpus Christi, worried about his behaviour. Mary had since moved colleges, as she had been “feeling unsafe at Corpus”, due to the continued harassment and the college’s handling of the case. The Corpus Dean initially recommended she utilise the resources of the welfare team at her new college. Mary sent multiple emails, pleading to hear what steps had been taken, as she believed Joe had clearly breached the disciplinary panel’s ruling. After over a week of emails, the Corpus Dean responded to Mary. He stated that Joe had been “dealt with under the college disciplinary process” and “appropriate action” had been taken. When Mary pushed for clarification, Corpus officials informed her that Joe had been warned that further contact with her or Sophie was banned and repeat offences could lead to him being sent back to the Disciplinary Committee, effectively returning to the beginning of the disciplinary process.
Mary told Cherwell that this experience was frustrating. This new warning negated “the whole point of the harassment panel in the first place”. She reiterated that she and Sophie were under the impression that “if he contacted us again that was it – no more warning, he was kicked out”.
Following the Dean’s response, Mary wrote to the Corpus Academic Registrar to obtain the results of the Hilary 2020 disciplinary panel in writing. In the November 2021 email she wrote that without the “exact terms” of the disciplinary findings, she couldn’t be sure of what behaviour “constitutes a breach”. The Academic Registrar quickly responded with some of the outcomes from the panel, which included that the accused could not “make any contact by whatever means with either of the female students” nor be in the same “non-teaching environment, room or social space with either female student”. The college did not specify restrictions in teaching settings and Sophie had to talk to instructors herself to ensure that she could be separated from Joe in teaching spaces. The Academic Registrar added that the Dean had “reminded” Joe of these stipulations and stated that further breaches would send him back to the Disciplinary Committee. This email was the first time in nearly two years that either Mary or Sophie had received any part of the terms of the panel in writing. Mary wrote in a reply to the Academic Registrar that she was “utterly dejected” that the terms of this panel had not been maintained.
Those invited to the Scholar’s Dinner
A few days later, Corpus held a Scholar’s Dinner to celebrate all leavers who had achieved a First in Finals. Mary was amongst this group, but due to “space issues” linked to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, was uninvited from the dinner about a week beforehand. The college later told the women that “no invitations were revoked”. Mary had also been told that since she had switched colleges it was “no longer appropriate” for the Corpus to “enter into correspondence” with her about the dinner since it was a “College event”.
She and Sophie learned from friends in attendance at the dinner, however, that Joe was present, despite his college site ban being extended, as per the Academic Registrar’s most recent email. A friend at the event immediately expressed their discomfort to the Dean at the event but was told that this was not an appropriate time to have this discussion. When Sophie’s boyfriend wrote to the Vice-Principal that he was uncomfortable to have been at the same event as Joe, given his past actions, the Vice-Principal responded that this was a “large gathering” with “varying levels of personal relations between attendees”. He insisted that this was “after all an academic function”.
Sophie wrote in an email that night that she was “alarmed” and alleged the college displayed “apathy” towards vulnerable members. She and Mary persistently emailed Corpus to request to speak to the Dean regarding these infringements of the Disciplinary Committee. The women were informed that college administration was discussing the matter and would be in touch soon, as “the number and tone of emails exchanged on this subject over the last week suggests that there is a need for further clarification and closure on this matter.”
Sophie, who was still a member of Corpus Christi College, was informed that she should not contact the Dean without communication from him first, despite having effectively “no one else to turn to”. She also later received an email stating that her tone to the Dean had been unacceptable, as he has “worked hard to ensure that the disciplinary procedure has been followed and all students are treated fairly”.
Help beyond the college
Concerned that college and university measures were not substantive, Mary filed an official criminal complaint against Joe in late 2021. It was however dropped due to an administrative error on the police’s side which led the force to suspend the investigation to the 6-month time limit between filing and ruling. Moreover, Joe’s contact within the statutory time limit for stalking offences of 6 months was sporadic. Police have since apologised to Mary for the delay and errors made in the handling of the case. An inspector added that the initial instances of stalking in 2019/20 “could have been considered and investigated as a stalking/harassment offence,”, however since these actions were not reported within six months, they could not be prosecuted. Sophie and Mary were advised that if they had been directed to the police sooner, the case could have likely been dealt with within the six-month limit for evidence.
Mary states that before she switched colleges, she was not made aware of the harassment supports that existed outside of the collegiate system, including the Oxford Student Sexual Harassment Support Service, nor was she encouraged to speak to the police by Corpus Christi. Sophie told Cherwell that they were “given the impression that the college procedure would give a similar result to a police report, like a no-contact order” and had thus not wanted to endure the further emotional upheaval and lengthy process of a criminal filing. Mary added that her new college’s disciplinary proceedings encourage severe cases of sexual harassment and assault to be referred to the police.
Indeed, details of individual college harassment procedures vary greatly. In Trinity 2022, the Conference of Colleges provided colleges with a Non-Academic Discipline Procedure Template which “had been tested as to compliance with law, regulatory obligations/guidance and good practice”. This new model allowed “for colleges to adopt/adapt to their own particular constitutional arrangements and circumstances as they see fit.” Implementation was thus varied.
The majority of colleges have a specific procedure for dealing with harassment complaints and ensure written communication with all relevant parties, with over a dozen including nearly identical procedures specific to harassment investigations and discipline between students. These colleges also included stipulations that the complainant can directly appeal the case if they are not satisfied with its treatment. Only Corpus and five other Oxford colleges admitting undergraduates do not require both the complainant and the accused to be informed in writing of the verdict of their NADP or dedicated harassment proceedings.
Sourced from publicly available college files and the OUR SPACE survey
A not-so-new NADP
In Hillary 2022, Mary and Sophie sent a formal complaint to Corpus describing their displeasure with Corpus’ conduct and the NADP as it stood at the time. The Corpus President answered them in April, acknowledging “the distress that [their] experiences in relation to this case caused, both at the time and since the complaint and hearing”. The President added that issues concerning sexual harassment were “under active review in committees and bodies of the University, Conference of Colleges, and individual Colleges,” and that it “is obviously important to keep procedures and good practice up to date”.
She concluded that Corpus Christi Oxford was revising their own NADP and thanked them for Mary and Sophie’s own “valuable input and perspective”. In particular, she highlighted their concern for complainant support and “communication of the outcome of a complaint and any associated investigation to the complainant(s), in particular the details of any penalty imposed”.
Two months after the Corpus President’s official reply, however, a “leaver’s drinks” was held at Corpus and Joe was invited. Sophie was informed of his presence with 2 hours’ notice “as a courtesy”, despite the existence of the continuing college ban.
Since 2022, the Corpus administration has revised aspects of its NADP and Harassment Procedure. The new procedure for 2023-24 puts greater emphasis on involving police authorities early in the process and notes that “[i]n deciding whether to do so, the Dean should take into account the wishes of the reporter.” The procedure also includes new ways to appeal disciplinary proceedings and breaches and provides means for the reporter to complain about the proceedings.
Whilst the Corpus Christi NADP no longer stipulates that reporters can only receive word of the completion of disciplinary proceedings verbally, they are still not guaranteed to receive the verdict in writing. Now 2023-2024 Corpus Handbook policy states that in cases of major breaches of discipline “the reporter will be informed of the completion of the proceedings, and any outcomes that the Vice-President deems it necessary for them to know”.
Mary had hoped for a substantial reform of Corpus procedures and is thoroughly discouraged by her experience: “it sickens me that Corpus can treat victims like this and I wouldn’t want anyone to go through what I did”. She adds that “the stalking was a horrific thing to go through alone, but the way we were dismissed by college authority whose job it is to safeguard us for these issues had an immense impact on me, leaving more lasting emotional trauma than the stalking by the end of it all”.
Corpus Christi College has not responded to Cherwell’s requests for comment.
Toad of Toad Hall A.A Milne’s adaptation of Kenneth Grahame’s 1908 beloved classic The Wind in the Willows, is a testament to throwing responsibilities away. It begins, rather excitingly, by Mr. Mole saying ‘Hang spring cleaning!’ which, honestly, sounds like a wonderful idea.
This irresponsibility is, of course, expanded on by Mr. Toad who learns nothing and continues being insensible to the world around, with little remorse and even less sense. The play centres around Mr. Toad’s latest craze – an obsession with motorcars, even though he can barely drive – and his friends’ attempts to rehabilitate him. It is ultimately a play that is a little bit about friendship, but mostly about the madness you would expect in a child’s imagination. There features ‘a different kind of rabbit’- not to be confused with a ‘normal rabbit’, eight car crashes, a ditty primarily about ducks and a scene of creepy ‘Wilwood animals’ prowling about the stage in jumpers and sports jerseys, headed by the angry Chief Weasel (Elliott Wood)..
Toad of Toad Hall starts with Marigold (Cathy Scoon) and her Nurse (Kat Surgay) lounging on a picnic blanket (set by Keira Cumming). Green light streaming (by lighting designer Tilly Jackson Long), the scene mirrors a perfect summer day, a gentle reprieve from the tragic beginnings of winter outside Michael Pilch theatre. Marigold is spirited, and it is through her imagination that the world of Mr. Toad and his friends and many enemies are realised. Scoon’s Marigold is delightful; you are convinced not only that she is a child, but one of the select few that are able to elicit the adoration of all around.
‘The world has held great heroes’, the titular Mr. Toad sings,’ but never a name to go down to fame […] [like that] of Toad’. This is the marvellous myth that Mr. Toad in Toad of Toad Hall, directed by Niamh Jones, tries to perpetuate, convincing no one.
Mr. Toad (Beth “Fitz” Fitzpatrick) is truly conceited, oblivious and magnificent. Fitzpatrick’s portrayal is nothing short of phenomenal; everything from their walk and song leaves no doubt that this Mr. Toad is revelling in chaos. A sight that would make Grahame, and even his friend Oscar Wilde, proud. In particular, Fitzpatrick’s use of physical theatre when they imitate driving a car is both humorous and quite convincing. Although the play was interrupted by a fire alarm part way through the first act, Fitzpatrick and the other members of the cast firmly remained in character.
The play was as comforting as the novel in part due to its charming characters. The main cast included Mr. Badger (Antonia Anstatt), who was effectively repetitive, hilarious and who had known Mr. Toad’s father, grandfather and, notably, ‘his uncle the archdeacon’. Besides Mr. Badger are the affable and universally beloved Mr. Rat (Matt Sheldon) and the endearing, sweet-tempered Mr. Mole (Wren Talbot Ponsoby). All three make for characters that are not only distinctive, but are also enviable friends. Anyone that can deal with Mr. Toad is sure to be exceptional- and in Milne’s play, we find three.
Overall, Toad of Toad Hall is a romp through the adventures of trying to manage that one mad friend that also features cosy moments of friendship, carols and luncheons. It is a production with a fiercely talented cast and is a lovely way to demolish any lingering bits of fifth week blues.
