Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 490

City council increase spending on homelessness

0

Oxford City Council has announced it will be spending £1.2 million more on preventing homelessness and rough sleeping next year.

The additional funds bring the council’s total spending on the issue to £7.4 million, and are part of a larger effort by the council to transform their approach to homelessness.

Much of the money will go towards the completion of the new shelter and assessment hub in Floyds Row, the first wing of which opened last month.

It’s a space co-designed by people experiencing homelessness that includes a range of accommodation, a treatment room for drug and alcohol dependency and intensive support to help people move on from a life on the streets.

The centre will be fully open in April, providing a warm, calm and safe environment for those sleeping rough to access support and advice on accommodation.

Councillor Linda Smith said, “On most days, an hour in the heart of our city will reveal the terrible human cost of a national homelessness crisis sparked by austerity, welfare reform and a broken rental market.

“Much less obvious is the work that we and our partners do to help hundreds of people off the streets every year … Homelessness is not inevitable and it is not something we will ever accept.”

This comes on top of the progress the council and charities have made in reducing the numbers of those rough sleeping in the city.

43 people were counted sleeping on the streets last November, a number down nearly a third since 2017.

Moreover, the council has said that in 2019 it prevented homelessness for 458 families. Hopefully the extra funding will lead to even better statistics next year, as more people are helped to access the safe housing they need.

Merton pledge support for Homeless Charter

0

Merton College announced last Tuesday that they have pledged support for Oxford Homeless Movement Charter, becoming the latest Oxford organisation to join the cause.

The Oxford Homeless Movement Charter aims to help rough sleepers and provide the accommodation and support they need to help them off the streets, to rebuild their lives, and to prevent a return to street homelessness.

The organisation also aim to ensure that through their network of organisations and volunteers that people who are sleeping rough have the “same opportunity to access information, work, training, volunteering, leisure and creative activities as the rest of Oxford’s community”.

Following last week’s meeting of Merton College’s Governing Body, where they agreed to support the charter, the college’s Warden Professor Irene Tracey said: “I am delighted by the enthusiastic and unanimous support for OHM by our Governing Body. This is the first step in what we hope will be a long and impactful journey working alongside OHM to eliminate homelessness in our beloved city.”

In an online statement the College said that they were “proud to be playing a part” in working towards eliminating homelessness across the city.

In addition to signing the Charter to support its vision and values within the college, Merton pledged to make an annual donation to the cause for the next five years.

Merton have also published OHM suggestions of how to help including giving time, expertise and ideas to the Movement’s member charities who need support, either as a volunteer with a partner charity or through sharing your skills

They have also proposed inviting an OHM charity partner to come and talk to organisations about homelessness to raise understanding, as well as a commitment to inclusive recruitment procuring services locally from social enterprises and purposeful businesses, and paying the real Living Wage or higher.

Merton College has been contacted for comment.

University refuses to release Schwarzman vetting documents

0

Oxford University has refused to release documents to Oxford Students’ Union relating to the vetting of a £150 million donation made by Stephen A. Schwarzman for the construction of a new humanities centre.

A motion which passed during the Union Council’s meeting in 3rd week of Hilary requested that the University release the full details relating to the vetting process of Mr Schwarzman’s donation so that a public review of the process could take place.

The motion also requested that Oxford demonstrate “a transparent ethical framework for donations,” to ensure that any donations are “consistent with the University’s stated values of sustainability and equality.” It further requested information relating to the honours Mr Schwarzman will receive for his donation.

Responding to the motion, Oxford said “All decisions about donations are made by the University’s Committee to Review Donations, 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. The Committee reviews all the publicly available information about a potential donor and can take legal, ethical and reputational issues into consideration. The Committee Oxford City Council has announced it will be spending £1.2 million more on preventing homelessness and rough sleeping next year.

“The additional funds bring the council’s total spending on the issue to £7.4 million, and are part of a larger effort by the council to transform their approach to homelessness. Much of the money will go towards the completion of the new shelter and assessment hub in Floyds Row, the first wing of which opened last month. It’s a space co-designed by people experiencing homelessness that includes a range of accommodation, a treatment room for drug and alcohol dependency and intensive support to help people move on from a life on the streets. The centre will be fully open in April, providing a warm, calm and safe environment for those sleeping rough to access support and advice ensures the good governance of the funding of University activity, and openness and transparency around the sources of that funding.”

Regarding the gifts and honours Mr Schwarzman would receive due to his donation, the University clarified that while the building will be named “The Stephen A. Schwarzman Centre for the Humanities,” it is against university policy to let donations influence academic policy or appointments, meaning that Stephen Schwarzman would not receive any honorary fellowship or associated role for his donation.

Oxford Student’s Union is yet to respond to the University’s answers to the questions asked at the meeting.

Speaking to propose the motion at the Student’s Union Ben Jacobs, council member from Pembroke College, said: “The University has made it clear that these single large philanthropic donations are a precedent for fundraising for the future. They’ve talked about keeping pace with our American competitors. Looking at the comparison the University have made to America and this idea that we need big philanthropic donations, if you look at the States in the last year we had the cash-for-places scandal, Epstein and the MIT media lab, lots around Sackler donations. It is clear what can happen if we just look at competition between universities rather than looking at ethical and accountable frameworks within the University for who we want to take money from and who we want to name our buildings after.”

The motion criticised many of the financial interests of the Blackstone Group, the investment firm chaired by Mr Schwarzman, including the role the group has played in the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest, and in the global housing crisis.

The motion also highlighted links between Stephen Schwarzman, Donald Trump, and the Koch brothers. It levels the claim that Mr Schwarzman sought to “legitimise socially and ecologically destructive practices” through investment at internationally renowned universities.

The new humanities centre will unify seven faculties and six libraries in one site, near Green Templeton College in Jericho. In 2019 a number of academics voiced their opposition to Oxford University’s acceptance of the £150 million donation by Stephen Schwarzman which made the centre possible. The letter argues that the centre “will be built with the proceeds of the exploitation and disenfranchisement of vulnerable people across the world.”

The donation to Oxford follows a similar donation made by Mr Schwarzman of $150 million to Yale University in 2015, and $350 million to Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2018. The latter donation laid the groundwork for a $1 bn school of artificial intelligence at MIT.

Cambridge lawn destroyed by Extinction Rebellion

0

Extinction Rebellion members destroyed part of the Trinity College lawn in Cambridge on Monday.

The activists were digging up the lawn in protest against the college’s plans to sell off land they own in Suffolk to an individual who was intending to use it to develop a lorry park.

Cambridge XR tweeted: “Trinity College owns Innocence Farm in Suffolk and is attempting to sell the land to the Port of Felixstowe so they can develop a lorry park for 3,000 vehicles. “We must call time on those profiting from the destruction of nature.”

In Cambridge student newspaper Varsity, Trinity College has also been accused of having: “£9.1m directly invested in companies involved in oil and gas exploration, production, and refinement, and £7.79m invested in companies that carry out fracking.”

A spokesperson for the college has said: “Trinity College regrets the criminal damage done to its property beside Great Gate. “The College respects the right to freedom of speech and nonviolent protest but draws the line at criminal damage and asked the protestors to leave. Academics at Trinity are actively engaged in research to understand and develop solutions to climate change.”

Police have been criticised for their failure to intervene in the protest. No arrests took place on the day the damage took place, though the Cambridge police have since reported that “a crime has been recorded for criminal damage”.

Three people have been arrested since the protest, including 19 year old Caitlin Fay and 26 year old Gabriella Ditton. The Extinction Rebellion activists also blocked Trumpington Road in the city on Sunday in a campaign “to force local institutions to take action on the climate emergency”.

Images of the destroyed lawn have been circulating across social media, sparking outrage from a number of individuals.

Allison Pearson, columnist for The Telegraph, tweeted: “A Cambridge councillor points out that if lads from the Arbury estate blocked roads or dug up lawn they’d be banged in the slammer. “Middle-class dons’ children arrested? Heaven forbid!”

Others, however, have expressed support for the rebels’ actions. Eco columnist for The Independent, Donnachadh McCarthy took to Twitter to say: “Hey @xr_cambridge digging up a tiny patch of ecologically dead lawn made your exposure of climate criminality by Trinity College the number TWO item on bbc website last night! Howls of outrage are of public being shaken out of lethal complacency. It is part of the process. Awesome.”

The scheme to develop a lorry park on the college’s Suffolk land has been rejected.

Students show their love for the climate

0

Last Friday, February 14, more than 100 school students gathered in Bonn Square as part of Oxford’s latest climate strike.

Taking place on Valentine’s Day, the ‘love and inclusion’ themed protest aimed to raise awareness of the climate crisis and promote community engagement. It was organised and managed by the Oxford branch of the UK Student Climate Network (UKSCN).

Bearing placards and banners bearing slogans such as ‘Respect existence or expect resistance’ and ‘The climate is changing, so why aren’t we?’, protesters converged in Bonn Square before moving through central Oxford. The day also saw dance performances and live music from Band For Climate.

Local schools said that they had not officially authorised the absence. Despite this, a number of students (some of whom were as young as six) were joined by parents and grandparents in a show of solidarity.

Many had no previous experience of climate strikes but took the opportunity to make their voices heard. Speaking to the Oxford Mail, 13-year-old Catherine Monelle said, “This is my future and I have not had a chance to make any impact yet. I may not be able to change a lot but it is important I do my bit.”

The protest marked a year since the first major climate strike in Oxford. In February 2019, an estimated 1500 students marched through the city demanding that the government take immediate action. Yet activist EJ Fawcett believes little has changed in this period. The 18-year-old explained: “We will continue to rally for the foreseeable future… We do not want to have to strike at all, we want to be able to live our lives and play videogames, read books and go to school.”

The striking students in Oxford joined scores of teenagers protesting across the country. In London, demonstrators carried banners proclaiming “Roses are red, violets are blue, our Earth is burning and soon we will too” as they marched through Parliament Square.

Similar scenes were to be found in Bristol, Glasgow, Brighton and Birmingham where protesters ignored miserable conditions and took to the streets.

Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Greta Thunberg, started the climate strike movement in Stockholm in August 2018. She said that there were more than 2,000 Valentine’s day strikes due to take place across the globe. She went on to add that larger events are being planned for the coming months in the hope of encouraging governments to address climate change.

Petition released to Boycott Taylors

0

A petition has been released to boycott Taylors, a chain of sandwich and deli shops across Oxford. The petition was created by Oxford student Atticus Stonestrom, a co-chair of the Oxford Coalition Against Homelessness (OCAH), and has been supported by Turl Street Homeless Action (TSHA).

The petition is a response to an incident which occurred in one of the cafes last summer when staff refused to allow two rough sleepers to drink their beverages on the premises, despite the fact that they had purchased the beverages in the store. According to the TSHA and the two individuals in question, Taylors demanded that the rough sleepers leave after taking their orders because of an offensive ‘odour’, supposedly deterring other customers from eating their food.

According to OCAH, the company issued a private apology for “miscommunication”, but OCAH reports that they “nonetheless failed to acknowledge the discriminatory nature of this conduct, in particular refusing to give assurance that this kind of behavior would not occur again.”

A spokesperson for Taylors told Cherwell that: “the allegation about Taylors discriminating against homeless people is inaccurate and untrue. We are aware of an incident in July where two individuals were asked to leave our premises due to a number of customer complaints over a period of approximately one week about a strong, unpleasant odour originating from them. The conversation between us and Adrian and Theodora was, unfortunately, handled poorly by the then Shop Manager and they were not given a clear reason as to why they were asked to leave. They assumed that this was down to their appearance and the fact that they were homeless which is regrettable as this was absolutely not the case.”

They went on to say: “We do not discriminate against anybody visiting our shops. However, we do have a duty of care to our customers and we cannot allow individuals to remain on our premises when other customers are walking out and raising complaints about hygiene standards in an establishment which provides food throughout the day. None of this has anything to do with the fact that the people asked to leave our premises were homeless.

“We are acutely aware of the serious homelessness problems within Oxford but this incident is being taken out of context and exaggerated. We have apologised for our initial poor handling of the communication and this apology was accepted. Oxford’s homelessness situation is a large and complicated issue to resolve and far beyond our circle of impact. We have however been discussing this internally and are working out ways where we can, in our own little way, play our part and do what we can to help.”

The petition advocates boycotting all Taylors establishments until they issue a public apology for the incident and assent to a list of demands put forward by OCAH. These include agreeing not to eject customers who have not displayed harmful behaviour, even on the basis of other customers’ complaints; not to deny service or entry to such customers; not to enforce time limits if there are enough tables free for new customers; and not to harass rough sleepers or treat them differently from any other customers.

Stonestrom posted the petition with the caption: “Those of you who know them have probably heard about the absolutely appalling treatment Theodora and Adrian have received in the past year; unfortunately this kind of persecution is common.

“Here’s an attempt to push back; please do sign and help publicise as much as you can.”

In a comment Stonestrom told Cherwell: “Unfortunately persecution against rough sleepers is commonplace; the demands we’re raising here are a bare minimum for combatting this kind of conduct.”

The petition can be found online at: https://www.change.org/p/oxford-businesses-boycott-against-discrimination-of-rough-sleepers-by-oxford-businesses?fbclid=IwAR1N4Ibp5cQTM27e8RMhpm6sg22zrNebtmt4xiUHZ5yH0_O2ba1QHXsrSF8

Colleges debate financial support for the UCU strike

0

University College and New College, have debated motions in support of the UCU strikes. New College’s JCR narrowly rejected a motion supporting the strikes with amendments pledging to give money to the strike fund, if it was deemed to be a legal donation (dependent on consultation with the Bursar). Univ’s JCR passed the motion to support the strikes.

Policy motions at New College require a two-thirds majority to pass, and the final results were: In Favour= 52.22%; In Opposition= 28.89%; Abstention= 18.89%. Questions were raised in the meeting about the legitimacy of giving to the UCU strike fund due to the policies of colleges on giving money to outside institutions (such as those with charitable status).

The UCU states on their website concerning the strike fund that: “If members vote to take action: those of you earning £30,000 or more will be able to claim up to £50 from the third day onwards; those of you earning below £30,000 will be able to claim up to £75 per day from the second day onwards.”

The strikes commenced on Thursday 20th February, and are spread out in three clusters: Cluster 1: Thursday of 5th week – Wednesday of 6th week (4 working days) Cluster 2: Monday of 7th week – Thursday of 7th week (4 working days) Cluster 3: Monday of 8th week – Friday of 8th week (5 working days)

The University and Colleges Union are organising and participating in the strikes. The UCU is a trade union which represents those employed in higher education.

This means the union represents casual researchers and teaching staff, “permanent” lecturers, and academic-related professional services staff. Any employee of the university who falls under one of these categories and is a member of the UCU is eligible to participate in the upcoming strikes.

It is unclear how wide-ranging strikes will be this year, and exactly how many lecturers intend to strike. Although all UCU members have the right to strike, whether to strike or not is left to the discretion of the individual. Cherwell understands that approximately 50% of the Oxford UCU branch turned out to vote in the strike ballot. Of those, around 75% voted in favour of action, meaning that around 38% of Oxford UCU members have returned a vote to strike.

More information about the UCU strikes can be found here: https://cherwell.org/2020/02/17/ucu-strikes-what-you-need-to-know/

Pitt Rivers to restore Maasai artefacts

0

A group of Maasai tribespeople visited Oxford this month as part of an effort to retrieve sacred objects held by the Pitt Rivers Museum.

The Maasai are an indigenous group from Kenya and northern Tanzania, with a reported population of around two million in total.

Two treaties in 1904 and 1911 reduced Maasai lands in Kenya by 60 per cent when the British evicted them in favour of settler ranches. More land was further taken for the creation of wildlife reserves and national parks, including Serengeti National Park.

The Pitt Rivers Museum is contacting indigenous peoples directly about restoring articles.

This is part of the Living Cultures project which works to represent the history and narratives behind artefacts held in museum collections, relating the impact of the colonial past to the present.

Starting in 2017, Living Cultures is a partnership between Maasai representatives from Tanzania and Kenya, the Pitt Rivers Museum and InsightShare.

InsightShare, an Oxford-based NGO, has worked with indigenous communities for over 20 years.

The Maasai visit came after Samwel Nangira, a Maasai from Tanzania, visited the Pitt Rivers when he was at a conference.

On his visit, he questioned the labels attributed to some of the objects in the museum: “what does ‘collected’ mean? Like when you find something in a forest, so not donated, and not robbed?”

In January, seven representatives of the Maasai came to Oxford at the invitation of Laura van Broekhoven, director of the Pitt Rivers, and InsightShare, to determine where and when the objects were taken.

In a press release, the Pitt Rivers Museum said: “The visit, bringing one of the largest cross-national delegations of Maasai leaders to the UK, is a continuation and elaboration of the last visit, leading on to the next steps of the conversation and allowing for ceremonial and spiritual guidance by the elders.”

Among the delegation was Lemaron Ole Parit, a spiritual leader with mystical powers. Out of 188 artefacts, Mr ole Parit identified give he thinks are “culturally sensitive enough to warrant a return.”

Artefacts are especially important to the Maasai because they represent the continuation of a dead person’s life. Amos Leuka, a member of the delegation, said: “If somebody dies, we treat the artefacts as equally as important as a dead body.”

In 2017, Emmanuel Macron said that he wanted to see the return of artefacts to Africa within five years. This contrasts with the usual defensive position taken by former colonial powers.

In Britain and France, there are laws which prevent museums from releasing objects, which had been stolen from formerly subjected people.

Since Macron’s statement, the movement for restitution has grown. While several museums in the UK are constrained by the legislation that binds national collections, Universities are not.

Oxford’s Pitt Rivers Museum, which holds the university’s archaeological and anthropological collections, has returned 28 stolen objects thus far, all of them human remains.

The Pitt Rivers Museum said in a statement: “Museums are bearers of difficult histories and their collections are continued causes of pain for affected communities. By working together to reimagine these museums as spaces in which reconciliation might be able to come about, we believe that anthropology museums, like anthropology itself, can become anti-racist projects and sites of conscience.”

Debate: Has Macron Lost Control?

0

Proposition – George Beglan

The Macron Government, led by the youngest President in the history of the Fifth Republic, has lost all control of events at home, never mind abroad. This outcome has long been anticipated; Emmanuel Carrere had his work translated into the Guardian in 2017, the year of Macron’s election, presenting this outcome as a possibility.  

The first proof of this is obvious: the ongoing protests by the gilet-jaunes. The most violent riots in 50 years, along with multiple accusations of police brutality, have dogged the Macron regime. It’s a piecemeal approach of patronising addresses and partial concessions demonstrate its greater obsession with its own image than a desire to return the capital to a normal state. I was, on an anecdotal note, in Paris for the New Year; one couldn’t help but notice smashed phoneboxes and graffiti littering every arrondissement, a fitting metaphor for and descriptor of the Macron Presidency. Furthermore at home, his plan to breathe life back into secularism has been so far just that, a plan and nothing more. 

The latest opinion polling still suggests poor results for Macron. Bloomberg has him pegged at 32%, YouGov at 29% and Kantar suggests a mere 25% approval rating heading into 2020. These results all stand lower than his own PM, Philippe. Given the majoritarian French electoral system of SV, one may expect this to punish him come the next election, especially with the continued march of Front Nationale in the East of France. In July 2017, his government passed a bill subject to numerous criticisms by human rights groups as infringing upon civil liberties, coming into effect in November of that year. Its provisions are due to expire at the end of this year; we shall see if the Macron government moves to extend them instead.  

This government ran on a platform of reducing corruption in French politics. Macron then only walked back from appointing his wife a position within his cabinet after a petition backed by 290,000 people was created online. Further, the Benalla Affair, and the failure of the government to refer the case to a public prosecutor, as it was obliged to do by the French criminal code, shows that its intention and practice in this regard is that of blatant hypocrites. This government’s internally contradictory policies continue into the realm of foreign policy – Macron claimed to embrace the open door policy of Merkel, whilst also supporting increased funding for Frontex.  

In short, the Macron government has hypocritically disregarded the very principles it ran on, and has accordingly failed at achieving the very objectives it supposedly set out to accomplish. It has no control of its own cabinet members, along with the national capital, as is inherent in such a shambolic administration. It should, and likely will be held to account for this by the electorate come the next French election.  

Opposition – Louis Kill-Brown

Macron. Hollande. Sarkozy. Giscard d’Estaing. Some might even point to De Gaulle. The lifecycle of a French President’s image follows a very recognisable pattern. Whenever we talk about Macron’s successes or failings it is helpful to keep that pattern in mind, as it helps us to appreciate the very particular—and problematic— context that France’s political culture represents. A brief glance at the previous two hundred years of French history will show a nation with a historical propensity for political hero worship. Ultimately, France’s tendency towards political hero-worship always proves to be incompatible with her disdain for authority. In the lifecycle of the average President, and in particular, for those who have advocated reform, a dramatic shift in public perception is almost the norm: once elected, the Napoléonesque champion of the people rapidly becomes the Louis XVI-style, ancien régime oppressor. In this sense, France is certainly not a normal country – but nor is Macron a normal President. However, we must separate the unimpressed perception of the French people with an impressive legislative reality. Even in the French Republic, as any baccalauréat history textbook will tell you, popularity and control are not the same. Macron may well have lost one, but he is far from losing the other – especially when compared to his recent predecessors. Take it from the astute Sciences Po himself: “Popularity isn’t my compass. Unless it can help one to act, to be understood… that’s what counts”. Reaping the fruits of his brief electoral popularity, he has acted: wealth taxes on France’s richest have been scrapped and labyrinthine labour regulations have been slashed. His impressive handling of Trump and his hard-line on Brexit have reminded people on both sides of the channel that France, now more than ever, is to be listened to and not forgotten. He may lack extensive quantifiable successes beyond this, but not-insignificant legislative change has continued steadily throughout his administration. Despite that, Macron’s lasting legacy will be a cultural one. The impact he will have on French political culture in the long-term is arguably the most significant of any President in contemporary French history. Quite simply, he has done what few other French leaders in recent times have dared to do: he has stood up to his people. And doubtless, in his own view, he has also stood up for the French people, in a way that few have before him. Regardless of your political opinions on the changes he has made, it is a fact that Macron has shifted the relationship between the people and their président. That relationship is unlikely to be the same again. He has not lost control, he has simply lost popularity. He has been successful furthering progress, just perhaps not in the way that many of us had expected. Yet, let there be no doubt, he has most likely been planning this seismic shift in political culture all along.

House prices in Oxford fall against national trend

0

Oxford has seen a fall in house prices in recent years. According to the Zoopla Cities House Price Index, average house prices in Oxford fell 0.1% in the two years to February. Across 2019 as a whole, the average price fell by 0.4%.

Zoopla, a property website and app, produce the index by comparing the house prices in 20 different UK cities. Across the country, house price growth has hit a two-year high of 3.9%. This healthy increase follows stagnant to decreasing prices in the second half of 2018. It is believed to be the product of increased buyer demand, with sales transactions up 11% year-on-year in December. In the first weeks of 2020, it was 26% higher than it had been in the same four weeks in both the previous years.

In Oxford, the average house price has fallen slightly and now stands at £413,000. Oxford was one of only two cities that posted a fall in the last year. The other, Aberdeen, saw a fall of 0.7%. This can be compared with cities of faster growth like Edinburgh and Manchester. They saw a growth rate of 5.4% and 4.7% respectively. Between November last year and a year previously, there were 351 sales of homes priced above £500,000 in Oxford, down 13%.

Various reasons have been suggested for the fall. Oxford’s most desirable properties – largely situated in the Victorian terraces of the northern part of the city, or in Jericho – saw a significant increase during the years following the 2008 crash. This was largely driven by the migration of wealthy buyers from London attracted by Oxford’s good transport links and leading private schools like The Dragon School and St Edward’s. However, this rapid growth has now caught up with the market, with buyers being deterred by a shortage of homes for sale and high prices. Moreover, the second-home tax, introduced in 2016, has reduced the number willing to move to Oxford without selling their London home as well. Brexit worries have also been suggested as a factor putting buyers off: Zoopla indicate that average prices were up 1% in February on a year previously.

At an average ratio of house prices to average income of 12.6%, Oxford is almost tied with London (on 12.7% ) as the least affordable city in the UK to live. By contrast, Glasgow posted a ratio of just 3.7%. House price growth is expected to be a healthy growth of 3% across the UK next year. Zoopla’s Research and Insight Director Richard Donnell comment that this was “partly due to fading political uncertainty; households holding off moving are now starting to return to the market and this momentum has been supported by low mortgage rates.” However, without a sharp rise in the number of properties on the market in Oxford, any large growth in prices in the city is unlikely in the near future.