The University of Oxford is beginning the clinical trial stage for its new Ebola vaccine, called ChAdOx1 biEBOV.
The new vaccine uses the same viral vector technology that was pioneered in the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, also developed in Oxford.
The trial, being run and overseen by the Jenner Institute, will have a sample size of 26 volunteer patients, between the ages of 18 and 55. They will receive a single dose of the vaccine and will then be monitored and assessed on several occasions over six months.
We can expect the results from the Phase I trial in the second quarter of 2022, with a further trial set to commence in Tanzania by the end of 2021.
The vaccine targets two of four species of the Ebola virus- the Zaire and Sudan species. Between them, they cause the vast majority of both cases and deaths from Ebola, and the Zaire species has a death rate of between 70 and 90%.
It was the Zaire strain that was most prevalent in the catastrophic West African outbreak of 2014-16 that caused over 28,000 cases and 11,000 deaths, primarily in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
The ChAdOx1 virus, or Chimpanzee Adenovirus Oxford One, is a weakened and harmless variant of a common cold virus, genetically designed so that it cannot replicate in humans. The use of a chimpanzee virus is so that no human will have any previous immunity to it.
Although there are already two approved vaccines for Ebola, the new vaccine offers several advantages.
Dr Paola Cicconi, Chief Investigator of the Trial, said that similar to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, the Ebola vaccine “can be rapidly manufactured at high volume for low cost, with storage conditions amenable to use in the developing world”.
These factors are all very important since the main market for the vaccine will likely be in sub-Saharan Africa, and especially the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is facing a renewed outbreak in the North Kivu region.
This vaccine is also unique in being multivalent – targeting multiple variants of the virus. By being able to target both Zaire and Sudan variants, the vaccine can be used in virtually all outbreaks and therefore governments can stockpile it, secure that it will be useful if a new outbreak appears.
It is also at present a single-dose vaccine, which is more beneficial in crises and severe outbreaks than the two-dose vaccinations which take longer to be effective.
Professor Teresa Lambe OBE, the Lead Scientific Investigator, has underlined the continued importance of Ebola vaccines, saying “sporadic Ebolavirus outbreaks still occur in affected countries, putting the lives of individuals- especially frontline health workers- at risk. We need more vaccines to tackle this devastating disease.”
Dr Daniel Jenkin, who is the Principal Investigator of this trial at the Jenner Institute, has emphasized the novelty of this vaccine: “This disease can be caused by several different species of virus and each of these may require a targeted immune response to offer protection.
“We have designed our new vaccine to target the two species of virus that have caused nearly all Ebolavirus outbreaks and deaths, and now look forward to testing this.”
The Jenner Institute, named after the inventor and pioneer of vaccines, Edward Jenner, is funded by Oxford University along with many partners, including the Ministry of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the European Commission.
It supports research into vaccines and other treatments for diseases as varied as HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, zika, and now-famously, COVID-19.
The ChAdOx1 viral vector that is crucial to this vaccine’s effectiveness has been used in several other projects by the Institute- not just the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but also for vaccination trials against malaria, MERS, and zika virus.
It was in the aftermath of the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak that ChAdOx1 was first used by researchers from the Jenner Institute to try and prepare for ‘Disease X’, a fictional infection that was used to plan for the next serious epidemic or pandemic.
While Ebola was certainly a greater threat in 2014-16 than it is now, with only very few, sporadic infections across remote regions of Africa, this vaccine could help ensure that no major outbreak happens again and that hundreds or thousands of lives could be saved across West and Central Africa.
Starting as an ambitious crossover between chicken nuggets and grime, Amelia Dimoldenberg’s YouTube show, Chicken Shop Date, launched her career as an interviewer and presenter at the top of her game. Having now amassed 100 million views and close to one million subscribers, she quite literally ‘dates’ pop culture figures from Ed Sheeran to Maya Jama in chicken shops across the U.K. A hilariously cringey five-minute interview ensues, brought to life by an exquisitely tuned combination of awkward silences, sarcastic wit and unaffected questioning. Who else would ask Jack Harlow if he was able to read, or tell Aitch he “look[s] a bit like a prawn”?
Logging into the zoom call, I half-expect to be met by this same stone-faced, self-professed serial dater I had so enjoyed watching over the years. Instead, I am greeted by almost the antithesis: an incredibly personable, smiling Dimoldenberg sitting in her brightly-lit kitchen.
“I feel like it’s obviously an exaggerated version of myself,” Dimoldenberg explains. “I’m just extending aspects of my personality that, if I pushed them further, would be funny and would get a reaction from the person I’m interviewing, in the best kind of way, that would make for a really entertaining video.”
Dimoldenberg initially created Chicken Shop Date as a written column in a youth club magazine, and was first introduced to grime and rap through fellow members. She then decided to interview artists in order to learn more about their music. Having seen journalists pose the same unoriginal questions to celebrities time after time, Dimoldenberg was keen to do something different: “I wanted to do an interview in a way that you don’t normally do an interview, so I thought I’d do it as a date. I also really wanted to go on a date as well. Then someone said you should go on a date somewhere where you would never normally go to make it fun and that’s how the chicken shop happened. Luckily there’s quite a few in London to go to.”
Unlike traditional media interviews, Dimoldenberg’s show is as much about the interviewer as the interviewee. She attributes her success to people wanting to see how typically composed celebrities manage the gloriously uncomfortable atmosphere that she so effortlessly creates through her ‘chicken girl’ persona. ‘Chicken girl’, of course, being one of the many names she has turned around to in the streets of London, alongside the simple, but effective, ‘CHICKEENN’(spellings may vary).
“I think that people like the show because of my awkwardness. They want to see whatever guest, how they interact with my awkwardness and how it makes them appear. I hope that through my own awkwardness and weirdness, their personality comes out because they’re affronted with something they don’t expect (…) It just makes them act in a different way that actually maybe makes them a bit more relaxed because they’re thinking ‘oh my god at least I’m not as weird as her!’”
With her tremendous success, Dimoldenberg certainly seems to be making ‘awkward’ fashionable, something she tells me is a bit of a conscious mission: “I feel like awkward is a negative term,” she pauses. “If you’re being called awkward it’s not something you’d shout about. But I’m trying to turn it into a positive (…)So many interactions are awkward. Especially dates and just meeting people generally. I think it might be quite nice for people to see someone being awkward and think ‘oh god, I can relate’, or if you can’t relate, then it makes you feel better about yourself,” she trails off in laughter.
As we talk about the filming process, Dimoldenberg explains that a lot of the humour is derived from how the footage is edited, and she’s a wholehearted proponent of ‘less is more’.
“We film for about forty minutes. Minimal is used. That’s the beauty of it really. I watch so much content where I’m like ‘this could be half the length. So much of this stuff is like, not interesting’. That comes from a place of me watching so many things and me being like, ‘I don’t want it to be like that’. If you’re not laughing, what’s the point in even having this clip in it.”
Whilst Dimoldenberg’s content is well-understood and loved in the context of British humour, I wonder how she deals with situations where the person she is interviewing might not quite ‘get it’.
“The ideal with any guest is you want someone that is coming back with something interesting to say.” She pauses briefly, and changes her mind. “No, funny first. In my head I’m saying: ‘say something funny, say something funny, please can this be funny’. And if it’s not funny then at least it should be interesting. And if it’s neither of those then you’re a bit like ‘oh, goodness’. If someone’s sitting opposite me and giving me back one word answers it is tough, but to my advantage with Chicken Shop Date, it thrives off the awkwardness. It’s meant to be a terrible interview and terrible date. It’s spinning it all on its head, like the inverse of what those things should be and that’s where the comedy comes from. So I’m actually pretty lucky that if someone maybe just gives me one word answers I can make that the punch line, make that the ‘thing’ of the interview and that’s funny in its own way.”
So how does Dimoldenberg select the ‘ideal guest’?
“I am very picky. Like everyone is with who they date. It goes through criteria. Are they exciting enough? Is there a buzz around them? Do we think they’re going to be big if they’re not already? Watching previous interviews, do they have charisma? Are they funny? All these different things.”
The more we talk about her career, the more I get a sense that Dimoldenberg is certainly not to be seen as a one-hit wonder. From starring in her own cooking show to presenting a documentary, ‘Meet the Markles’ for Channel 4, she seems keen to diversify her portfolio. Most recently, Dimoldenberg filmed a six-episode investigative series for Dave, called ‘Who Cares?’, posing questions to the British public about topics including the housing crisis, billionaires and fast fashion. How did she manage the transition from the more light-hearted nature of Chicken Shop Date to more serious conversations while maintaining her comedic personality?
“I’m not propositioning them for a date, and I’m not flirting with them on the street. I’d probably get arrested!” Dimoldenberg laughs. “I’m trying to use humour to get something interesting out of the conversation. That, I guess, is the kind of thread between all my work – my tone of voice, the deadpan humour,” she says wisely.
While Dimoldenberg is most well-known for these skills as an interviewer, I wonder whether she has considered making content on her own. Perhaps the recent change in name of her YouTube channel from ‘Chicken Shop Date’ to ‘Amelia Dimoldenberg’ speaks to a desire to establish herself as a comedian in her own right?
“Of course, most of the stuff that I do is opposite someone. I’m interviewing someone and I actually love that. That’s my favourite type of thing to do and that’s what I think I will be doing for a long, long time. As you said, it needs that dynamic and something to riff off. But at the same time, to build my audience and to build my name, I need to be doing stuff on my own. Working with talent is amazing and you get such brilliant content from it, but it also can be such a hassle (…) Maybe it would be easier if I was just vlogging in my bedroom and all I needed was me and my camera and my handbag with all the stuff I was going to show you that’s in it. But I don’t think that’s what I’m interested in making. I’m interested in making iconic pop culture moments, which I feel like I’m kind of doing. I think you need to have celebrities involved. But I think it is important for me to make sure my name stands out on its own.” She pauses deliberately.
“Still, so many people don’t know my name in terms of people that watch Chicken Shop Date. So many people just call me ‘the girl from chicken shop date’ or like on the street they’ll be like ‘CHICKEEN’ or ‘CHICKEN GIRL’ and I will just turn around because I turn around to that now. But more and more I find people are like ‘Amelia!’ and that’s when I know I’m doing something right – when people start to remember my actual name.”
As our conversation draws to a close, she tells me about what’s in store for the rest of the year. In addition to monthly uploads of new Chicken Shop Date episodes, she hopes to continue filming with members of the England football team:
“I’m fully obsessed (…) I would love to do more football episodes but at this point I don’t know if I could because I don’t know if I would be able to control myself and my emotions!”
With plans to write her own screenplay “in the long term”, she’s also taking some time off. We both take a moment to lament the fact that neither of us own a picturesque lake house to which we might go on a writing retreat.
Just before we end the call, I ask the question that I’d been waiting to ask since we started. When are we going to see Drake on Chicken Shop Date? She laughs. It’s no secret that Drake has been her dream date since the show started.
“Drake did slide into my dm’s just before the pandemic hit. That was just an insane thing that happened that I just can’t get over and it’s just incredible and means so much to me that he even watched the show. Fingers and toes crossed. I’m thinking in my head that when he comes back to do another tour, which I’m sure he will, that that’s the perfect time. He’ll be in London. I’ll slide in again: ‘You owe me a favour, Drake. Hello. I’m available.’”
Image Credit: Who Cares? with Amelia Dimoldenberg airs weekly on the Dave YouTube channel. Watch Chicken Shop Date and Amelia’s Cooking Show on Amelia Dimoldenberg’s YouTube.
UK women’s number one, raised in the idylls of Kent, with a WTA ranking threatening the world’s top 20 aged just 18. This is not, however, another Emma Raducanu article — “she’s achieved an enormous amount more than me!”, Annabel Croft is swift to interject when I offer up the comparison over our Zoom call. Who better, though, to gauge the current state of women’s tennis (currently a nexus of debates over mental health, media circuses, and political activism) than Croft. After winning the junior competitions at Wimbledon and the Australian Open, then Virginia Slims in 1985, Annabel Croft was the darling of British tennis. Three years later, however, she retired from the game, citing a lack of enjoyment. Now a successful commentator, she really has seen the game from all sides of the court.
“I’ve interviewed Osaka since she was really young”, Croft responds when I bring up the highest-paid female athlete in the world, who has also revealed she isn’t enjoying the game anymore, “it was always a bit like “Oh, god, you’re going to get one-word answers and it’s going to be a bit of a disaster” because you never got anything out of her. But as I watched her develop and become a great player —” It is at this point that our discussion is briefly interrupted by the delivery of what I believe to be some garden furniture, leaving the trajectory of Osaka’s career hanging in the balance. “— that she seemed far more comfortable with it”, the answer continues, “I sat there in press conferences, and she would be quite engaging and enjoy the banter back and forth with the press.” What, then, of her recent tryst with the organisers of Roland Garros, who threatened Osaka with possible disqualification after she decided to not participate in post-match media conferences? “As I understand it, and I don’t know this to be a fact I think it might have taken her whole team by surprise as well.”
Croft, as someone who has seen both sides of the sport, offers a perspective that is both analytical and empathetic, especially when it comes to the loses: “it’s very lonely, enormous pressure on your shoulders, and you are taking 100% responsibility for what happens … you feel like the world’s about to end and you’re about to throw yourself off a cliff. When you’re a sports person that’s never done anything else in your life since the age of seven or eight than hit tennis balls, sport it is it everything to you.” I wonder if she agrees, then, with Osaka’s decision to remove herself from the press side altogether. “Well, that’s where women’s tennis has opened up this really interesting debate because sport is such an amazing teacher to the individual about themselves and about life. Because it teaches you humility, and how to cope with defeats and disappointments. And that’s a really important factor in life: you can’t win everything.”
In all the debates surrounding women’s tennis, one thing that stands out is how young these professional athletes are: Osaka won her first, highly controversial, US Open aged just 20, and Emma Raducanu has just become an international celebrity months after finishing her A-Levels. Here, we begin to reflect on how Croft managed these defeats and disappointments with newfound fame as a teenager. “I was splashed across all the front pages of the newspapers. And, you know, it was a bit overwhelming. It all happened very, very quickly.” The tour, of course, was slightly different in the 80s, less Met Gala and more Greyhound bus stations: “I was booking my own travel by hanging around on phones to try and get to the next tournament, trying to book a flight in the middle of the night and booking my travel lodge somewhere.”
Like Osaka, it seems, it wasn’t Croft’s game that caused her strife, but the immense pressure of expectations. “I also think that by today’s modern standards, when I quit at 21 —” there is a pause here, and the words become more deliberate, more considered, “—Looking back, if I was in today’s world, that would have been mental health issues, for sure. I mean, no question about it.” The support systems currently available to tennis players, most of whom now work with sports psychologists, were simply not present in Croft’s day: “I was heading off to see psychotherapists in Harley Street. He was a marriage guidance counsellor or something! He was doing his best to try and understand tennis, but…” What could have been different, then, if Annabel Croft, British number one, had been playing today? “That’s my only regret, I suppose”, she starts, then quickly corrects herself, “I always for 30 years said I’ve never regretted anything… But my only regret would be that I didn’t have sports psychology to help me.”
This is by no means to say that Croft’s career halted after her retirement. After some primetime hosting gigs, she has become one of the country’s most well-renowned tennis experts, commentating with Sky Sports, the BBC, Eurosport, and Prime Video. A valued member of the British tennis establishment, her experience as both player and pundit provides invaluable guidance to up and coming stars: “I’m always so wanting to help some of the younger ones to understand that the media fits together with the whole circus — you need both to work together to be able to have the platform, and I think a lot of them just treat the media as the enemy.” Are they? “I mean, I’ve sat in press conferences, and some journalists are unbelievable, they’ll just go straight for the jugular. And I guess that could be quite frightening for some people.” One thinks, perhaps, not only of Naomi Osaka, but of Jo Konta, or John McEnroe’s response to Raducanu’s Wimbledon withdrawal (“it makes you look at the guys that have been around and the girls for so long. How well they can handle it”).
With her first-hand experience of growing up on the tour, Croft explains the duty of care she feels as a pundit: “personally, I always know that when you’re asking questions of an individual who has just lost a match, you do need to be sensitive to it.” And this sensitivity helps to shape Croft’s own interview technique: “there are certain ways of posing a question which will get the subject talk – you might say something like, ‘Well, I know you must be very disappointed about today. But could you just give us your take on what happened today?’ And that’s a more gentle way.”
“I’m in a different category,” Croft continues, “because I’ve been on that side of it, and now the other side …” There is, however, an economic necessity to these press conferences, which only becomes apparent in her current role in the tennis machine: “we’re all trying to sell the sport and all of it adds up together to get advertising and sponsorship. That’s how the players are enabled to make their money. … I never understood it when I was a player, but as a media person, all I know is that my producer wants to fill a certain amount of airtime. And we don’t really mind what that content is. Better content’s going to engage more with people and that might encourage more sponsorship, if your viewing figures go up. If you get boring interviews, then that’s not going to attract the audience, is it?” As stars like Serena Williams begin to wind down their tennis careers — the much-proclaimed changing-of-the-guard — the status of the sport’s new figureheads, Osaka included, will be dictating the future of the game. “It’s a tricky one, isn’t it?”, Croft ponders, “because if somebody is having mental health issues, they need to have helped with that; but equally, women’s sport generally has been looking for bigger platforms to be able to equal out with the men. Suddenly, that’s been given this kind of full stop.” For all the difficulties of holding these two perspectives — an understanding of the pressure placed on the individual but also the individual’s role in the wider economies of sport — she does, it seems, come down on one side of the Osaka debate: “It’s never good to actually try to take on media, I think it’s a losing battle, they will always have the power to write whatever they want to write.”
After everything that Croft has experienced, her journalistic attitude is one that seems to be increasingly rare, one that is inflected with compassion and empathy, from the perspective of a player who understands what it’s like to lose a game it feels like your life depends on. One thing I am struck by throughout our conversation is the interest she takes in my own thoughts — “What’s made you think that?” she asks when I ask if media antagonism has gotten worse with social media, “maybe I’ve missed something that I haven’t seen?” To have such an expert on the game actively engage with the opinions of a 20-year-old English student is incredibly refreshing. It is no wonder that the LTA value Croft’s experience enough to ask her to help teach the rising stars about media engagement. Reassuringly, she is also a fan of what she calls ‘old school journalism’, “that still needs to take place to ask those difficult questions that perhaps you may not want to answer, but where we find out something about you.” Her take on the value of the press conference speaks to the career of a woman who faced enormous pressure and converted it into something unexpected, but enormously beneficial to players and audiences around the country, one Emma Raducanu included: “it’s an old cliche, but you do learn more from your losses than your wins, you learn a lot more about yourself.”
Oxford is a city of closed doors. From each College entrance fiercely guarded to the back doors, fire exits, and imposing, spike-topped gates, Oxford from a visitor’s perspective is one of strictly monitored and controlled access. During the pandemic this became even clearer. Large medieval doors that had once stood propped open, allowing students and visitors alike a glimpse into the grassy quads beyond, were firmly and decisively closed. The already guarded atmosphere of Oxford’s elite spaces took on a whole new character of exclusion, and as restrictions have waned and a degree of normalcy returned, vestiges of this unpleasant pandemic legacy have hung around longer than they are welcome.
Nowhere is this clearer than Oxford’s most-guarded, most-elite space: All Souls College. Before the pandemic, All Souls was one of Oxford’s most inaccessible colleges, with incredibly limited visiting hours and a library that requires a supervisor’s sign off to enter. All this despite the fact the College’s enormous grounds and staggering resources cater for only some 80 fellows. Walk around All Souls for any period and the message is clear: you are not welcome.
One can therefore only imagine the opportunity that pandemic restrictions presented All Souls – close to visitors indefinitely and shield the College’s community from prying eyes of students or visitors alike, all under the guise of pandemic protections. This has had the effect of erasing All Souls’ bare-minimum attempts to grapple with the legacy of the untold number who suffered and died to build the College, especially its library, which until very recently was called the ‘Codrington Library’. It still contains a giant marble statue of Codrington himself, a slaver who owned plantations that at any one time used the labour of 300 enslaved people.
In 2017, the College unveiled a plaque to stand at the entrance of the library, reading: “In memory of those who worked in slavery on the Codrington plantations in the West Indies.” Despite the obvious and glaring errors in this statement (“worked”, implying consent, and with no direct acknowledgement of the College’s involvement in this legacy), this plaque was one small step towards contextual recognition of this unpleasant history. It was, and remains, All Souls’ only physical recognition of Codrington’s past. Yet the plaque sits behind the library’s door to Radcliffe Square on Catte Street. In Michaelmas 2019, when I used the library, the door was open during the library’s opening hours. It took some nosiness to discover the plaque, but it was nevertheless somewhat visible.
Since Hilary 2020, however, the door has remained firmly shut, with the plaque nowhere to be seen. The door locked, with strictly guarded access at all times, even during term. Despite the Bodleian and all College libraries operating as normal, All Souls still requires 48-hour advance booking for their library, so the door is never opened apart from to let elusive All Souls fellows briefly in and out of their gilded space. This erasure is an unacceptable shirking of the College’s obligation to make publicly viewable the acknowledgement of dirty legacies.
I am lucky enough to guide for Uncomfortable Oxford, where we stand outside this firmly shut door several times a week and discuss this legacy. Usually, we could show people the plaque to open discussion, at least during the library’s term-time opening hours; now we have no such option and must instead rely on a photograph. Occasionally a fellow will leave the College, with some kind enough to hold the door to allow a glimpse, but others slam the door firmly behind them. The security excuse does not wash – there are two more card-access-only doors behind the one to Radcliffe Square. This is no way to acknowledge or commemorate the suffering of those who died so that the College can enjoy their collections and library in private peace.
Oxford has an accessibility issue; this is not a controversial statement. Out-of-date relics of elitism like All Souls hold a responsibility to do more than the bare minimum. But since pandemic rules paved the way for justifiable closing down, one cannot help but feel it is convenient for the College to keep these legacies hidden behind locked doors.
Public health measures do not deserve to be weaponised for the preservation of elite spaces nor the absolution of responsibility to provide public access to Oxford’s research and history. It is about time All Souls stood up and cared about its impact on the city. It cannot keep hiding behind excuses.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has identified two suspected cases of the Omicron variant in people associated with Pembroke College, according to an email from Pembroke to their students.
The UKHSA is now carrying out additional testing amongst College staff and students to find out if the variant has spread more widely. PCR tests will be issued on site on the 3rd and 4th of December for all Pembroke students and staff. The tests are issued on a voluntary basis, but Pembroke has told students “we would strongly encourage you to participate.”
The College stressed that “at this point the risk of further cases is low” and that the additional testing is a precautionary measure.
The UKHSA “recommends that students living on site stay in College until you have your result.”
Pembroke went ahead with its planned JCR Christmas Dinner on Wednesday, but students were required to provide proof of a negative LFD covid test on entry. Students have also been told to test before using the JCR bar.
There is currently no evidence that the Omicron variant causes more severe illness than previous variants. However, the variant has a large number of mutations which affect the structure of its spike protein, which is used by the immune system to identify and target the virus. Scientists are concerned that these mutations will make the Omicron variant more able to evade the body’s immune system, even after vaccination.
People who have been identified as a close contact of someone with the Omicron variant are required to self-isolate for 10 days regardless of their vaccination status.
Pembroke told Cherwell: “Pembroke continues to support all students who are isolating due to covid-19, as we have done throughout the pandemic. We are working closely with the HSA and implementing their guidance with regard to procedures where omicron is identified. Protecting all students and staff remains our priority at this time and we continue to provide appropriate guidance to all members of our community.”
A spokesperson from Oxford University told Cherwell: “We can confirm that two members of Oxford University have tested positive for COVID-19, and the omicron variant is suspected. The individuals are now isolating in line with government guidance and their close contacts have been notified and are also isolating. The University is working closely with the public health authorities and following their advice.
“The University has already implemented a number of changes to its health guidance in response to the omicron variant, based on advice from its clinical academics. There are no further changes to the University’s health guidance at this stage, or any additional actions that students or staff need to take. We are continuing to encourage the whole community to follow all University and Government health advice to reduce the risks of COVID-19.”
The University of Oxford has published its final plans for its new centre for humanities. Made possible by a £150 million donation from its namesake, the Stephen A. Schwarzman Centre for Humanities is intended to be completed by 2025 if planning is approved.
Further planning applications have been submitted for Oxford University’s new ‘Home for Humanities’. The building is set to cost £170 million to complete with the vast majority of funding coming from the the controversial businessman and philanthropist Stephen Schwarzman. Schwarzman is currently the Chairman and CEO of The Blackstone Group, a global private equity firm.
According to the University, the centre will “provide all of the staff and students of our faculties with facilities to support our outstanding research and teaching, to promote cross-disciplinary connections with the rest of the University, and to open out more widely than is currently possible to new audiences and visitors.”
The design from Hopkins Architects includes a concert hall, a theatre, and an additional performance space for experimental pieces. The centre will measure 23,000 sq/m and is set to be constructed opposite the Radcliffe Observatory building, providing “a dynamic hub dedicated to the humanities”.
A spokesperson for Mr Schwarzman told Cherwell: “When approached by Oxford, Mr. Schwarzman was proud to support the creation of the new Centre which was a major unmet need for the university and will benefit Oxford students, faculty and the community for years to come.”
The project has come under criticism in the past, most notably after initial public consultations in February of last year. Then, campaigners from the Student Union and university staff called for Schwarzman’s money to be rejected, wanting more transparency in general regarding the process by which donations are accepted and funding is approved.
Schwarzman has faced significant backlash in the past when contributing to other projects thanks in part to his close personal, political, and business relationship with Donald Trump. He set up and chaired the president’s ‘Strategic and Policy Forum’ before it was disbanded in 2017 and donated $15 million to a super-PAC backing Senator Mitch McConnell for re-election in August of last year. A spokesperson for Mr Schwarzman told Cherwell: “Mr. Schwarzman is a lifelong Republican and it is hardly surprising that he has supported Senator McConnell – the party’s long-time leader in the Senate.”
Regarding Mr Schwarzman’s ties to former President Trump, the spokesperson said: “When asked, Steve provided advice to former President Trump on matters related to economic policy and trade. Over the last two decades he has similarly provided assistance to presidents of both parties – including the Obama and Bush Administrations – on issues such as veterans hiring, the fiscal cliff negotiations and global financial crisis response.
“Mr. Schwarzman and former President Trump have not spoken since mid-2020 – well before the November election – as Steve’s advice was focused solely on economic matters, not politics. Steve made it crystal clear in a November 2020 public statement, long ahead of the January Electoral College certification, that President Biden won the election and that he was ready to help the new president in any way he could. This was followed by a deeply personal statement expressing his horror and disgust at the appalling insurrection that followed President Trump’s remarks on January 6. As Steve’s previous statements make clear, he strongly condemns the attempts to undermine our constitution.” Elsewhere, he saw himself drawn into controversy in 2010 after comparing an Obama taxation project to Adolf Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland. Mr Schwarzman’s spokesperson told Cherwell he had apologies for the comment “more than a decade ago”.
The plans for the centre are now available to view on the city council website for 12 weeks and, if approved, the university plans to complete the construction by 2025.
An Oxford University spokesperson told Cherwell: “Mr Schwarzman has been approved by our rigorous due diligence procedures which consider ethical, legal, financial and reputational issues. The idea of a humanities building has been in ongoing discussion and consultation for more than a decade but we did not have funding for the building until Mr Schwarzman’s gift. The Centre will benefit teaching and research in the humanities at Oxford; its performing arts and exhibition venues will bring new audiences to the University; and it will build upon our world-class capabilities in the humanities to lead the study of the ethical implications of AI.
“All decisions about donations are made by the University’s Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding, whose members include Oxford academics with expertise in relevant areas like ethics, law and business. This committee considers whether donations or research funding are acceptable under University guidelines, and turns down proposals which do not meet this standard. The Committee reviews all the publicly available information about a potential donor and can take legal, ethical and reputational issues into consideration. Auditors have looked at our process and found it to be robust and effective, and we are confident in its ability to determine which sources of funding are acceptable under our guidelines.”
Oxford City Council announced last week the return of their Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP). The policy is intended to provide overnight accommodation to homeless people living in Oxford in the event of particularly harsh winter weather.
In a press release issued on Saturday, the Council expanded on their plan for housing those in need of shelter over the winter. In partnership with the charities St Mungo’s and Homelessness Oxfordshire, thirty bedspaces have been secured across twenty-five rooms. The Protocol will then be activated if certain extreme weather conditions, such as snow or freezing or feels-like-freezing temperatures, are predicted.
The decision to activate will be made on a day-by-day basis, and anyone believed to be in need will be contacted and offered a place by representatives of St Mungo’s outreach team over the course of the day. In a continuation of the social distancing measures first implemented in response to the coronavirus last year, homeless people will also be offered separate and segregated accommodation if they so desire. Communal spaces, will only be available to one person at a time. For the first time, accommodation will also be pet-friendly, and room in dog kennels will be allocated to those who arrange in advance.
The Council believes that these provisions ought to meet the needs of Oxford’s homeless community, particularly as the busiest night last year saw demand for as few as eighteen beds. However, contingency plans are in place should the number of people in need of accommodation be higher than predicted. A Council spokesperson clarified that the policy, if deemed necessary, would involve the introduction into the scheme of “a number of venues and hotels … used over the course of the pandemic,” but stressed that such an eventuality is currently viewed as highly unlikely.
This week’s announcement ought to serve as a relief to Oxford’s particular – and growing – homeless community, which in 2020 was estimated to be four times the size in relative terms of its London equivalent. In light of the pandemic’s disproportionate effect on homeless people, and the record-breaking length and harshness of last year’s wintry conditions, it will likely be reassuring that such plans are in place.
When asked about the Council’s level of consultation with homeless people, a Council spokesperson noted that a questionnaire was distributed to each individual who took up the offer of accomodation last year. The results of these questionnaires have informed this year’s policies, including the decision to maintain separate room spaces, in spite of the scarcity of available venues. The Council also points to their close working relationship with the Lived Experience Advisory Forum, a board consisting of people with lived experience of homelessness.
It’s eight o’clock on a Monday night. The regular crowd shuffles in. We’re in the Oxford Brookes sports centre, and the players are warming up for a relatively important game in their season. Yet I do not care. I worry about the narrative that’s going to play out, and I hope for something interesting enough to commit to paper. But for all the time I’ve spent on this group of people, the tendrils of shared fate have not yet got a grip of me.
Today, I’m looking to change that—partly out of a sense that it’s time enough for it, and partly just because it’s a fun exercise in personal control (or perhaps guided surrender). As the game tips off, I start looking for villains. Roughly, I know my heroes. There’s the trio of Alex, Josh and Orin whom I covered last week, along with the host of other faces I’ve become used to. I don’t know exactly who the protagonists will be this time, but at least I’m clued up on the domain I’m drawing from.
Brookes I know only to an extent. The Blues played them earlier this term in what was a fairly vibrant game. What I had learnt was that their best player is no. 10, Maxwell Adzet Mauchline. The problem with Mr Mauchline is that he’s predominantly unassuming and inoffensive. He just does good things and doesn’t fuss too much about it, which is very unhelpful for my wannabe-zealot self sitting on the sideline. Anyway, Blues players Orin and Akin are tasked with stunting him for this game and, it turns out, they are going to do a pretty good job, so Brookes will be looking elsewhere for leading lights.
Orin Varley faces off with Maxwell Adzet Mauchline. Credit: Oxford University Basketball Club
Fortunately, the alternative choice is obvious. There is one guy I remember distinctly from the first Brookes encounter: their no. 8, Cole Barton. He has the demeanour of the kind of player that you find annoying whether he’s on your team or the opposition. Either way, he talks too much, protests too much. This is probably unfair, and he could be a great guy. But to enter the mode of true fanhood, you cannot treat people fairly. At least, you cannot treat the opposition fairly. They have to become one-dimensional characters in a two-bit storyline. To that righteous end, with all due apology to the man, I select Cole as my primary nemesis for the evening.
While I’m working this out, the game has been under way, and I look at the scoreboard—it’s lying. ‘Home 15, Visitors 9’. Now, if you’re unfamiliar with the Oxford Blues, what you need to know is that they do not lose. In fact, they don’t ever look like they are losing. That’s how this works. I come and I sit and I enjoy a comfortable display of dominance, and the train chugs on.
But this time, a real game is going on, and Mr Barton (boo) is aiming a shot towards the hoop, and it’s bouncing on the rim, and it’s still bouncing on the rim, and will it ever stop bouncing on this godforsaken rim? I actually thought the ball might have just stopped, there on the rim, but I was wrong. The shot was a miss, and the ball is up the other end, and Josh Soifer scores a two. Nice, some normality.
It’s not really normality because Brookes come back, and I’m noting down more about the opposition players than I have done in any previous match. But now, Orin has earned himself two free throws, and the Brookes crowd is jeering. Free throws normally cast this sudden moment of quiet, but this is not quiet at all. Still, much to the gallery’s disappointment, Orin sinks both. It feels like a moment of proper leadership from the captain. The quarter ends at a balanced 26-25.
For a brief moment there, Brookes were outplaying Oxford—the first time any team has done so this season. Now, though, it’s fairly evenly pitched. The second quarter continues in the same vein, in a reasonably uninteresting way. So instead, I focus my attention on Cole. There’s Cole going for a two in loads of space, but he misses and Akin goes up the other end and shows him how it’s done. There’s Cole going on a big run to loud cheers, but with no end product. There’s Cole going for a big buzzer-beating three, but it’s way off. Turns out this vilification thing is quite fun. The quarter ends with a completely-not-game-changing score of 47-46, but I don’t mind. Take that Cole.
It’s half time. I assess the crowd. It’s larger than the ones we are used to down at Iffley. Or, at least, it has more people unconnected to the team. That is, more people have just come to enjoy the game, with beer and a barely passable grasp of the sport’s rules in hand. The whole sports centre, with its bar, cafe, and screens showing live sports has a communal, welcoming feel that Iffley Road misses. I can’t help but feel it’s a shame that Oxford lack a hub like this.
The third quarter is quite uneventful. Oxford have the slight edge now. As a small lead opens up, the crowd start to ramp up the noise. I feel a little tug of hostility to this. Just tentatively, I am starting to fancy myself as in opposition to those around me. By the end of the quarter, Oxford has built up a lead of 60-68, and I hope all these Brookes fans take note.
Now, the fourth quarter begins. Big Alex three—11-point game. Josh two—13-point game. Strong Alex drive—15-point game. Swerving Harry run—17-point game. I note: “It’s starting, finally, to feel comfortable.” With 6:51 left in the game, the score is 68-84.
The spirit of conquest is broken by a controversy. The Oxford bench is greatly aggravated by something. In basketball, when a player commits five fouls in a game, they are said to have ‘fouled out’ and are not allowed to play any more minutes. The referees have mistakenly miscounted the fouls of Brookes no. 9, Arseniy Pushkin. They say he’s on four. He’s actually on five. But oh well, no biggie.
Pushkin scores a two. Pushkin scores a two. Of course. A big ginger Brookes guy does a great tackle on Josh. The crowd cheers. Pushkin scores a three. This does not stop. In total, Brookes go on a 14-point run. 12 of those points are scored by Pushkin. No biggie.
It’s timeout. The score is 82-84, with four minutes to go. There is a lot of energy pumping around this room right now. As they come out to resume play, Cole riles up the Brookes fans. The referee joins in. Everyone is loving the theatre. We’ve been subjected to a Brookes lead and an Oxford comeback, and now an Oxford lead and a Brookes comeback. Everyone’s had their comeuppance. But somebody has to win this thing. For the first time in the Blues’ season, there is real uncertainty about how this game is going to end. And… I almost care. Almost.
Well, you know the rest, you’ve seen the score. But let me tell it to you. Akin earns two free throws. We’re at the crunch point of the game. The crowd jeers, loudly. They are so ready for him to miss. And he does. He misses both. I feel for him. The game remains in the balance.
But soon enough, Josh scores a two. This is fairly standard procedure. By this point in the game, the term ‘Soifer 2’ has become its own stock phrase in my notes. But this one is special. It relieves some stress, and I’m thankful for it. Yet only a few moments later, I am writing it again. Soifer 2. He runs back into position: “Let’s go!” And again, there he goes, there he goes, there it is. Soifer 2. Oxford are running away with this. And Josh is running away towards the Oxford bench, and he’s jumping and nodding, and everyone’s on their feet. And I’m loving it. Take that Cole. Take that crowd. This is the pinnacle of the Blues’ season so far. It’s a great moment.
In the last minute or so, Akin gets another two free throws. Jeers again. But this time, he does not miss. He swishes both. Each swishing sound is music to my ears. Cole, in resignation, goes for a dunk, and fails, and the buzzer goes. The Oxford squad roars. On a knife edge, their day has been made.
For me, I’m left to ponder my connection to what has happened. Sports fanhood is rationally desired irrationality. It’s the hedonistic paradox—if you try and maximise your happiness, you will not do so. Instead, you have to make yourself invest in something enough that it can cause you pain. To get the most out of it, you have to absurdly surrender yourself to some people out of your control throwing a ball around.
But believe in this idea as much as you want, it cannot, by the nature of its irrationality, be constructed soberly. You have to stare down the barrel of a Brookes victory and feel the oncoming affliction. You need that illegal Pushkin tornado to appreciate the Soifer chest-thumping. As my luck had it, this is what I was able to experience.
And so, I feel ready to say to Brookes that guys, you couldn’t hold us back. You had your little comeback, but eventually the dam broke, and we showed you what’s what. Yes, we. Yes, us. I had won the victory over myself. I loved the Oxford Blues.
2nd May 1997 celebrates an era that feels unimaginably far from our current political landscape. Love Song Productions’ performance of the play captures this spirit of change; of breaking away from the past, and racing towards the future.
The play is sectioned into neat thirds ー naturally, one for each of the three main parties ー spread over the course of the election night and the following morning. It opens with Tory MP Robert (Karan Lalwani) reflecting on his career as he tries to evade the grim inevitability of losing his seat. Meanwhile, his wife Marie (Céline Barclay) both dotes over him, and opens up about the lonely life of an MP’s spouse. The endless constituency garden parties and condescending SpAds are cited, but more serious are the tales of numerous handsy and leering MPs that Marie has had to endure. In the light of recent allegations about Stanley Johnson inappropriately touching journalists and MPs, this sheds a stark light on how old problems continue to plague politics today, twenty years on.
Lalwani is excellent in the role of Robert, capturing the old-boy, traditionalist mentality of 80s politics that New Labour tried so hard to break away from. His strong attachment to conservatism and frustration at this changing of the tide is clear, whilte his age and illness parallels the tired-feeling Conservative party of the late nineties; too broken to be complacent, and too stubborn to change.
As the stage is transformed yellow, we are taken to a scene midway through the night, where a man and a womanl stumble in after an election party. Ian (Tom Baker), being a Lib Dem, is unable to cope with any kind of sexual tension, while Sarah (Iris Bowdler), having gatecrashed the party, is after something a little more exciting than watching the seats come in. Bowdler manages to perfectly capture Sarah’s chaotic and drunken state as she pendulums from brazen flirtation to confused vulnerability, perfectly opposing Baker’s nerdy nervousness. Throughout the play, the characters neatly fit into their party’s stereotypes, however co-directors Katie Kirkpatrick and James Newbery are careful not to lean too much into cliché, and in this scene, Baker’s Ian slowly transforms from a spineless bore into someone more, well, human, as Sarah opens up to him.
Throughout the play, we are reminded of the impact of politics upon the character’s lives, and I’m sure anyone who has spent enough time with a PPE-ist can recognise the moment when switching on the election coverage makes Ian’s eyes light up in a way that poor Sarah could never manage. Despite this, though, Sarah and Ian’s chance meeting reminds us that the world does not, and should not, stop for politics, despite what Ian may wish.
As Blair’s new dawn breaks, we find ourselves in a teenage bedroom, where friends Jake (Noah Radcliffe-Adams) and Will (Hari Bravery) find themselves entangled after the previous night’s festivities. We see their furtive excitement as they pour over the morning’s papers and attempt to memorise the new cabinet, and their youthful energy as they plan their own political careers. They are sure of everything, it seems, apart from themselves. Where Jake shakes off the events of the night before with a winning smirk, Will hides his feelings for Jake behind his enthusiasm for this new era of politics, giving the boys’ jubilation a bittersweet undertone.
Radcliffe-Adams’s Jake is marvellously arrogant, eager to show-off his political knowledge and intellectual prowess. Meanwhile, Bravery’s longing stares and nervous tension in the part of Will give the scene its edge, Jake being too busy dreaming to notice his silent admirer. While initially, the boys seem the epitome of the hopeful, Cool Britannia spirit of Blair’s campaign, this emotional tension reminds us that politics can’t solve everything, no matter how hard we may try to pretend it does.
2nd May 1997 manages to use a pivotal moment in political history to explore three very different relationships and the difficulties they face. It is performed with grace and humour, using the political events as a mirror that reflects the difficulties of each pair’s situation. 2nd May 1997 is about more than just politics; it’s about love and about the relationships that shape our lives, despite the changing of political tides.
In a newsletter to its students, Hertford College confirmed that the resident college cat, Simpkin IV, will soon be “competing for quad space with the cast and crew of the new Wonka film.” The filming is set to take place in the College before Christmas.
Simpkin IV, the Hertford College cat, relaxing in the marquee in Old Building’s Quad. Image Credit: Charlie Hancock
The film has been described by Warner Bros and the Roald Dahl Story Company as focusing on the life of a young Wonka before he opens his chocolate factory. The film is directed by Paul King, who also directed the Paddington movies. Horrible Histories star Simon Faranby wrote the script alongside King.
Timothée Chalamet is starring as the third rendition of Willy Wonka to hit the screens. He was recently spotted filming in Lyme Regis, Dorset. The town councillor, Daryl Turner, told the BBC that “the town as a whole has fully embraced [the film crew], they are fantastic news for the town.” Others starring in the film include Olivia Colman, Rowan Atkinson, and Sally Hawkins.
The film’s venue administrators, Narrow Mark Films, have applied to close Catte Street in Oxford on the 12th and 13th of December, and then again on the 21st. New College Lane, Brasenose Lane, and Merton Street are also going to be used as locations to film in. Scenes have already been filmed at Culham Lock in Abingdon, reported OxfordshireLive.
Hertford College clarified in its newsletter, “it is fake news that we are adopting as our new motto its title character’s suggestion that ‘a little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men.’”
