An Oxford University student was attacked as part of a spate of violent robberies on and around the Iffley Road in the early hours of last Thursday morning. Four people have since been arrested and charged.
Stephen Wadey, a second-year PPE student at Wadham College, was attacked near the Iffley Road Sports Complex as he walked back to his house at around 1am after visiting a friend in college.
Wadey said, “I was walking along one side of the road and there was a group of around ten people on the other side. Two of them broke away and came up to me. They demanded my phone and pushed me over a low wall onto some grass. I fell on my back and then they pinned me down with their hands around my throat and then punched me several times in the face.”
He described his attackers, saying, “One man was mixed-race, between 6′ and 6’1″ and with his face partly covered. The other was white, with short brown hair and was about 5’10”. They were acting really edgy: they were probably on some sort of drugs at the time.”
He said that the men stole his mobile phone and demanded his wallet, but he managed to conceal the possession of money. “I told them I didn’t have any and they seemed to accept that”, he said. The men then ran off to rejoin the group with whom they had been walking and Wadey ran home to telephone the police.
Wadey later learnt that his attack was the fifth to have taken place in the area that night. A 48-year-old man had his wallet and mobile phone taken by two men as he walked home along the Iffley Road at about midnight. Soon after this, two men were confronte and had money, mobile phones and bank cards taken from them. The fourth robbery took place just before that on Wadey, and involved a 22-year-old man who was made to hand over the cash in his wallet.
Thames Valley Police arrested four people at 9.30am the next day in relation to the robberies, following an intensive all-night investigation. Jack Ulett-Titcombe, aged 20, of Herschel Crescent, Littlemore, and Michael Collins, also aged 20, of Iffley Road, Oxford, along with a 17-year-old girl and boy appeared at Oxford Magistrates’ Court on the morning of Saturday 6th June, charged with conspiracy to commit robbery.
Ulett-Titcombe and Collins were remanded in custody, and the two 17-year-olds were released on bail. All four are due to appear again in Oxford Crown Court on Friday.
The attacks were the latest in a series of violent crimes in the Iffley Road area of Oxford, raising questions about whether the University should be doing more to ensure the safety of those members who live out.
According to the Oxford Safer Communities Partnership, incidences of similar crimes have risen dramatically over the last year. There was a 15.6% rise in robberies of individuals in April this year compared with April 2008. This is part of a wider trend, which has seen the rate of violent crime in Oxfordshire increase from 13 incidents per 1000 of the population in 2002/03 to 20 incidents per 1000 of the population in 2007/08.
Wadey described the situation saying, “the crime in that area has gone up massively recently. There was the domestic double stabbing, and two of my friends had their bikes stolen. I think I probably got off lightly compared with some people.”
He said that although he was not displaying any valuables when he was attacked, he nevertheless planned to be more careful in future.
He added that the University had been “responsive to my needs”, and that Wadham had given him accommodation in college for the rest of this year, so that he would not have to continue to live near the scene of his attack. “They have been extremely understanding, and I’m very grateful.”
Finally, when asked what outcome he would like to see from the trial, he said that the main goal should be the prevention of further incidents. “I am simply hoping that whatever the response, no one else has to suffer the same thing as me.”
OUCA has no choice but to change
OUCA is no stranger to controversy, but the impact of this week’s revelations should not be underestimated. The consequences of racist jokes told at hustings will not be limited to merely those individuals directly implicated, but will effect both OUCA and Oxford Student Politics in general. The question is where OUCA should go from here.
It is clear that those responsible need to be held to account. Inevitably, the National Conservative Party have already taken appropriate measures by suspending those involved. OUCA President Anthony Boutall has pledged to take similar action pending the results of a disciplinary committee, yet to be held. However, it would be a grave mistake to focus entirely upon the individuals who made the remarks.
Like OUCA, Westminster is currently embroiled in a scandal. MP’s have acknowledged that the public perceive the expenses controversy as symptomatic of wider problems within Parliamentary culture. It would not have been sufficient for a few heads to roll; in order to survive, they have had to pledge to engage in reform of the system. OUCA should pay close attention.
It is clear, for a number of reasons, that the problem goes beyond those who have taken the flak so far. Firstly, there is the point that candidates were asked, in an institutional setting, to tell a racist joke. Cherwell understands that returning officers only halted proceedings mid way through the answers being provided. Why was the question allowed to receive a response in the first place? Damningly, many inside OUCA have suggested that far from being an exception, questions like these are ‘traditional’. People don’t tend make jokes if they don’t think they’ll be laughed at. Clearly, those making them must have thought they would be acceptable in the context of OUCA hustings. Few people will take these remarks in isolation-there is a widespread impression that such behaviour is endemic to the organisation’s culture.
Many within OUCA will be hoping that this all just blows over. Some will be happy to let those directly implicated take the fall, and carry on as usual. This is not the right approach. If there is not wholesale change, they can expect a repeat event. There are several immediate changes that should be made.
Firstly, OUCA should open up. Exclusivity is contrary to the purpose of political parties. OUCA currently prohibits all members bar the President from talking to the press. Given recent events, one can see why such a policy is in place-but it is a mistake nonetheless. OUCA should not operate from behind a veil of secrecy. Rather than attempt to draw a shroud over its members activities, OUCA might benefit from more transparency. Members probably would have been more reluctant to make racist jokes if they knew that it could be reported, on the record, to the press.
Secondly, OUCA needs to reform both the culture and procedure of its hustings. Hustings do not need to be entirely serious affairs. Indeed, making hustings fun, amusing, and even slightly risqué can contribute to encouraging engagement, a point that is clearly taken to heart by many JCR’s. However, they seem to manage to achieve this without racist material.
Finally, OUCA needs stronger leadership on these issues. The response from Boutall has, frankly, been underwhelming. Throughout the emergence of the story, Boutall claimed to be ignorant of what had happened. In the best possible light, this shows him to be an ineffective leader-was it not his role to find out and deal with exactly such problems as these?
OUCA has marginalised itself within Oxford politics. There are already moves afoot to exclude it from Freshers Fair, and prominent Conservatives have begun to dissociate themselves-Michael Howard has already withdrawn from OUCA’s post election dinner, which he had been due to speak at. Sanctioning those directly responsible for the current mess is a necessary, but not sufficient measure. If OUCA wants to regain whatever credibility it had, it will have to change.