Thursday 17th July 2025
Blog Page 553

Oscar Wilde’s Ring Returns to Magdalen College

0

A solid gold ring given as a gift of friendship by Oscar Wilde to his friend William Ward has been returned to Magdalen College almost 20 years after it was stolen from the college library.

In a ceremony held on the 4th December, the ring was presented back to the college by George Crump, a commodity trader who had helped track the ring down.

Police were called to the college library in the early hours of the day after May-Morning in 2002 when Eammon Andrews, formerly a cleaner at Magdalen College, climbed through a skylight and removed the ring from its display case. He smashed the glass covering the cabinet containing the ring and escaped with the item, alongside a set of rowing medals awarded to the college in 1910 and 1932.

Forensic scientists managed to trace Eammon using DNA from blood left at the scene. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for the theft, served alongside a further six years to which he had already been sentenced for an earlier burglary.

By the time police tracked down Mr Andrews, the ring had already been sold to a scrap dealer for £150, a fraction of the £35,000 it is believed to be worth. Fearing that the ring would be melted down and sold for scratch, Magdalen offered a reward of £3,500 for information leading to the ring’s safe recovery. Almost twenty years later, in November this year Arthur Brand, a Dutch art detective, tracked down and retrieved the ring. Mr Brand was able to identify the precious item by the inscription on the exterior of the band which reads “Gift of love, to one who wishes love” in Greek.

According to Mr Brand, rumours circulated in the art underworld that a Victorian ring with a Russian inscription had appeared on the market. Mr Brand recognised the description as that of Oscar Wilde’s ring (if the Greek were mistaken for Russian). Working with William Veres, an antique dealer based in London, and George Crump, the son of a well-known casino owner with knowledge of the art underworld, Brand retrieved the ring for return to Magdalen College.

It is understood that the recovery of the ring is linked intimately with the famous robbery at Hatton Gardens, and the ring apparently emerged shortly after almost £200 million of jewellery was stolen from the safe deposit facility in 2015.

Oscar Wilde attended Magdalen College from 1874 to 1878, where he read the Greats (classics). It was at Magdalen College where he met William Ward, also a student at the college between 1873 and 1876. Wilde referred to Ward affectionately as ‘Bouncer’ in much of their correspondence.

In the year of Ward’s departure, Oscar Wilde and Reginald Harding gifted him a ring shaped like a belt and buckle, and cast in 18-carat gold. As well as the Greek inscription on the outside, Wilde inscribed the friends’ initials “OFOFWW & RRH to WWW 1876” (Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde & Reginald Richard Harding to William Welsford Ward 1876) on the inside. Ward donated the ring with a set of letters written between the two friends to Magdalen college at the end of the 19th century.

In a now-published letter, Wilde wrote to Ward: “I am so glad your people liked the ring, and if the Greek lines you quoted to me would fit it would be charming. Perhaps however our initials inside and [Greek Inscription] outside would be all that would fit conveniently.”

Interview: Rosie Sourbut, Labour candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon

Rosie Sourbut is not only a candidate but also a third year English student at Somerville College. I ask her first what it’s like being both a student and a candidate.

She replies that “The response has been really good – because the Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates are only in their thirties I feel quite comfortable. People have asked about my experience and I have admitted I am a student, but I have done a lot of campaigning in the past on issues such as violence against women and the climate crisis. I think people realise I have a lot to offer.

Labour talk a lot about the ‘green new deal’, yet they still want to re-industrialise, using green technologies that haven’t been perfected yet. I ask Rosie how she envisages a Labour Britain being re-industrialised successfully, whilst also keeping to the target of net-zero emissions by 2025?

“The manifesto is proposing the creation of new jobs within green technologies. We plan to create 400,000 new green, ‘clean’ jobs and climate apprenticeships across the country – these will be highly skilled jobs in creating green technologies.

So, whilst we are increasing employment, investing socially in infrastructure and improving quality of life, we’ll also be combatting climate change. I think this is the most positive aspect of our manifesto.

Regarding the proposed reduction in tuition fees, how is this viable under our current budget?

“The issue with student loans at the moment is that most people are very unlikely to ever pay them back… it is a massive debt burden on the government and it is not sustainable. Education should be for the benefit of everyone. It is an individualistic, Conservative view to say that if you are educated you will earn more and should therefore pay more for education. Labour look at it like this – if we have a more educated population, this is beneficial for everyone in society. Education should not further the class divide.

A big question around Labour is Brexit. Recently, Jeremy Corbyn made a statement about remaining neutral on the issue of Brexit – how do you feel about having a leader of the Labour party who isn’t really sure about Brexit, or how to move forward on this issue?

“I personally campaigned for Remain in 2016 and I have pledged that I will do the same at the next referendum. I think the Liberal Democrats’ offer of cancelling Brexit is unrealistic; they’ll never get a majority government to be able to do that, and it would ignore the fact that over half of voters opted to leave.

The Labour offer is to have as good a deal as possible with the EU, but a much softer Brexit than the one Boris is going for, which will reward the elite of society. We would then put that deal back to the people – they can then decide, when they see the final deal, whether or not this is what they wanted when they voted for Brexit. This is what should have been done in the first place.The Prime Minister has put forward an election because he needs support for his deal – a deal which has been the result of years of tedious negotiations. Do you believe that the EU has an incentive to renegotiate a new deal with Jeremy Corbyn, even though Corbyn has not made clear whose side he is on?

“Theresa May and Boris Johnson immediately took a lot off the table at the beginning of their negotiations… they went straight in and tried to negotiate a hard Brexit. A hard Brexit isn’t in our interests, and neither is it in the European Union’s. The EU have been very patient so far and I think they will re-negotiate, for their sake.

We know, if Labour got into power, we would have to renegotiate and look at a completely new deal. How do we move efficiently from here, and what might Jeremy Corbyn’s deal look like?

“The Conservatives have had three years to negotiate and they haven’t… they have done nothing but act irresponsibly. Brexit is distracting political energy from the most urgent issues, such as climate change, and people just want to get it over with. A Labour deal would protect the peace in Northern Ireland, protect worker’s rights and protect the environment. A Labour Brexit deal is not something to fear.

Do you feel confident in Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership?

“Yes – I am excited by the manifesto we have released and by the way we are gathering the best research to save the environment and improve quality of life across the country. It is a radical and hopeful manifesto, that is also fully-costed and fully achievable.

It rejects the notion that austerity is the only way, as was accepted under Ed Miliband. If you invest long-term in your country, you will see the development of a fairer society.

This is an exciting prospect, and its great to see that people are listening and appreciating that. The terms of the debate do not have to be dictated by the Conservatives.You’ve said that the manifesto is fully costed. Jeremy Corbyn has proposed a nationalised care service – how do you find this as a proposition? Is it financially viable?

“I’ve spoken to a lot of people who are very excited about this aspect of the manifesto. We are going to transform the care system, and create a Living Wage – people working in crucial caring jobs should have enough to live on.

We are going to make sure that, whether you’re wealthy in retirement or not, you are still going to receive the help and care that you need. There should be a support system to help all of us and allow us to live in dignity.

There’s a lot of concern about how quickly Labour are becoming what looks like a communist party. It’s currently quite a radical movement, proposing almost complete nationalisation – do you think there’s a danger in how far it’s gone?

“I don’t think it is a communist manifesto… if you look at countries like those in Scandanavia, they are already doing everything we want to do. We are not proposing a utopian communist vision, but rather a viable reality.

We are not going to let the elite of this country tell us we must continue to suffer… we live in one of the richest countries in the world, and we have the means to take care of everyone.

The Liberal Democratic and Conservative manifestos are not fully-costed and all of their proposed policies involve short-term injections… we propose long-term solutions, thinking about the infrastructure we need to tackle the climate crisis and ensure people are growing up healthy and fully-educated.”

Interview: James Fredrickson, Conservative candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon

0

After a day of canvassing and lengthy hustings, James Frederickson is full of energy as we sit down in Leon for a ‘short and snappy’ chat. With everywhere else already shut, a sign that it’s far too late for chit chat, we launch right in with the obvious: Brexit.

With a background in digital technology, Frederickson is a new candidate in Oxford West and Abingdon taking the reigns from previous Conservative MP, Nicola Blackwood who lost by 816 votes to Layla Moran in 2017 after 7 years in office.

In such a marginal constituency that has been passed between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats for the past 40 years, this election could go either way but it is sure to be dominated and determined by Brexit.

Frederickson guesses that from “the mood music on the doorstep”, there will be a thousand votes in it again. Frederickson voted and campaigned for remain across Oxfordshire in 2016. His position has changed considerably since, stressing not once but four times in 15 minutes, that the country must respect the outcome of the referendum.

The Green candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon stood down earlier this month to unite the remain vote in the constituency. With Frederickson representing the ‘leave’ vote, I ask why a constituency, of which 70% chose to remain in 2016, should change their vote three years later.

“Well, bear in mind that I not only voted to remain but also campaigned to remain as we talked about in the hustings,” he says. “When we were campaigning in that referendum there was a very clear promise at that time made by every single political party who was engaging in that referendum.”

“Paddy Ashdown famously on the night said: ‘Woe betide any political party that seeks to frustrate this outcome, the country has given its steer and all politicians should work together to deliver that.’ And I remember knocking on doors, regularly during that campaign and the importance that people placed on how they were voting in that referendum transcended party lines and I promised that whatever the result was I would respect it.”

A Council Member for West Berkshire since 2015, Frederickson is relatively new to the political scene in Oxford, but he sees no disadvantage between him and the incumbent MP, despite the potential for the leave vote to be split between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party candidate, Allison Wild.

“Across all parties, I think there is a lack of people that have a good grasp of digital tech, and bearing in mind our MPs are the people that make the decisions about how that’s regulated and understood and legislated on, I think people welcome a new generation with that background coming into Parliament.”

“It’s for each individual political party to make their decisions, every single politician that stands to be elected should do it on their own grounding, don’t go and blame people for voting one way or another, you should be convincing them about why they are voting for you,” he adds.

I steer the conversation away from Brexit towards, arguably, a more pressing issue. The Conservative party has moved away from green policies in recent years, but Frederickson outlines the importance of smaller units of housing in Oxford’s city centre to advocate more sustainable travel and affordable housing in one. More broadly, he sees the Conservative environmental policy as the most realistic because of the need to restrict debt.

“If you look at Labour and the amount of money that they proposing to borrow to £28 to every £1 that the Conservative plan, your debt ratio to GDP is going to sky-rocket, and money doesn’t grow on trees,” he says.

“Ultimately, debt is just borrowing from a future generation. So if we’re talking about actually we need to have a future generation in mind, you’re kind of undermining your argument if you’re going to saddle them with enormous amounts of debt.”

Campaigning for the Conservative Party in 2019, Frederickson faces opposition because of the controversial nature of its leadership. Boris Johnson’s reputation fails to phase the candidate, however.

“I always look to judge them by the policies that they have actually backed and pushed,” he says, using the examples of gay marriage and London’s public transport to highlight the former Mayor’s more favourable political positions. Frederickson adds that Johnson is a much more favourable option than Jeremy Corbyn even though “he’s got a certain style, he shoots off the hip more often than he should, but a lot of people admire that he isn’t this kind of robotic politician that’s just going to spout out lines.”

Corbyn is not the only party leader Frederickson criticises, referring again to the need to uphold the need to respect the result of the Brexit referendum.

“The idea that Jo Swinson, calling herself Liberal and Democratic said, ‘Oh, if there’s a second referendum and the result is leave, we would not support it. Our MPs will always choose remaining in the European Union, no matter what the result.’ That’s just ripping up liberal democracy. That is the most appalling position for me, and I imagine many people won’t be voting Liberal Democrat this time.”

We finish with the doorstep pitch, why should people vote for him over Layla Moran or Rosie Sourbut? His first response is to focus again on the Brexit argument. “If you want your politicians to stand by their promises then elect one that says they still stand by it, even though their own view was different to it, finding one that stands by the promise that they make you I think is key if we’re going to fix politics in our country.”

“I think I have something to say to both sides of the referendum, dogma is ugly, I think it alienates people. If you feel like your MP isn’t even approachable you can alienate half your constituency already, so I’d hope that my honesty in regard to my position on the referendum gives that,” he adds.

But, despite Brexit somehow seeping into every aspect of our conversation, we finish on a more unique note with his experience in digital tech.

“[Digital tech] can resolve the environment problem. It can play a big role in fixing some of the issues in regard to protecting our environment, by enabling people to live longer in their own homes, particularly in light of an aging population, how we think about building homes etc.”

“It is an area of expertise that is massively underrepresented in the House of Commons. It’s where our constituency is a leading innovator and it would be my honour to represent it.”

For the Record: Cameron’s Memoir

0

The lack of response to Cameron’s long delayed autobiography is indicative of the longer demise of the style of politics Cameron epitomises. Outsold by Blair and Thatcher’s biographies and overshadowed by the political events of the day, For the Recorddid not appear to make a splash beyond the numerous interviews Cameron gave to promote it. The book garnered less attention than Cameron’s interview on the Today programme where he admitted he had persuaded the Queen to make a tacit intervention in the Scottish independence referendum.

Indeed, the book reads like a death knell to a recent yet completely forgotten politics, one Cameron might describe as ‘decent’ and ‘compassionate’ but others termed the ‘Chumocracy’. When Cameron began his campaign to be Conservative party leader he had the support of just fourteen MPs. Seven of those fourteen remain in parliament: five lost the Whip on the 4th of September (some have since had it reinstated), and the two others are Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Cameron had adeptly pitched himself as the great moderniser the party needed for electoral success. In reality this amounted to a pragmatic managerialism necessary for a party that was £20 million in debt and far more interested in internal than external battles. He now pulls no punches when describing what the state of the party would have been like under his ‘thuggish’ rival David Davis: ‘nasty, brutish and short’. 

The revolution in the party’s outlook since can be gleaned from the change in their electoral strategy. In 2010, Cameron gained more seats in one night than any other Tory leader since 1931 and firmly established a Conservative Party of Middle England. The Tories performed best in the South East and were now pitching themselves to the liberal, metropolitan middle class who had grown weary of Labour. This is in stark contrast to the 2019 electoral strategy which hedges the moderate Remain Tory vote against the de-industrialised Leave North. Johnson’s belief in ‘divide and conquer’ would have shocked any pre-2016 conservative strategist who believed their job was to convince the country that was exactly what the party would not do.

This book begs the question of whether a leader like Cameron could ever rise to the top in the Conservative Party again. That the first chapter of the book is devoted to the creation of the Coalition in the two weeks following the 2010 election demonstrates the pride Cameron took in his ability to compromise and convey responsibility during a time of national crisis. This too was the focus of Clegg’s 2016 book that sought to reverse the belief that from coalition arises weakness. However, it is clear that Cameron grasped the wider picture far sooner than Clegg, knowing that he would benefit at the polls at the Liberal Democrats’ expense regardless of how the Coalition played out. Always one step ahead, when George Osborne advised Clegg not to support raising tuition fees, Cameron disagreed assuring him there wouldn’t be too much backlash. The Conservative political intuition was sure-footed, whereas Clegg’s sense of duty was bruising.

Peculiarly, it is Cameron’s dry sense of humour that is the most illuminating aspect of For the Record. He is self-effacing, gently mocking his Home Counties upbringing, and at times scabrous (Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan-Smith may be left red-faced). His funniest anecdotes are at the expense of foreign leaders. He recalls the time when he went outdoor swimming at the G8 summit, which prompted the never to be outdone Berlusconi to show an old photograph of himself in a bathing suit to the other leaders much to their confusion. 

Transport: an overlooked election issue

0

Much of the election campaign for all of the UK’s parties has been focused on addressing the furore surrounding Brexit. The Conservative Party, under the leadership of Brexiteer Boris Johnson, has been attempting to appease those who are dissatisfied with the extension of the deadline past October 31st. On the other hand, the ‘Remain Alliance’ of the Lib Dems, Scottish National Party (SNP) and Green Party have been pushing to repeal the results of the 2016 referendum.

This single-minded focus is entirely understandable, since the onein-a-generation decision to leave the EU has been at the forefront of world, let alone British (and Northern Irish), politics. If and how the UK leaves the European Union will likely have a major effect on the future of this country, even more so if it is the primary determinant of who will be in government for the next five years.

However, in the midst of all this Brexit-mania, various important election issues have been overshadowed, and it is up to us as an electorate to ensure that the government – whoever it will be from next month onwards – delivers progress on these fronts. Labour’s main attack point during the campaign has been the dilapidation of the NHS in recent years under Tory rule, as well as under a Tory-Lib Dem coalition government. While it is true that, according to the NHS Confederation, the NHS is lacking 43,000 nurses and 10,000 doctors, the problem of the underfunding of public services extends far beyond the realms of healthcare.

In fact, there is no easy solution to an issue which has troubled the government since at least the Great Recession. Both the Conservatives and Labour are promising to increase NHS funding but it is difficult to do so without accumulating too much government debt, especially while Brexit uncertainty is hampering economic performance. The problem is a simple one but one requiring a coherent and nuanced solution.

According to current economic doctrine, the government should increase its spending when the economy is experiencing a downturn in order to stimulate growth. Then, during booms, it should aim to balance the books by reducing net spend, aided by tax revenue increases as wages grow. However, with Brexit looming on the horizon, the economy has edged towards recession, meaning that the government has taken in less tax revenue as a result of the decrease in total private sector spending. This makes it harder to increase public spending without incurring a significant budget deficit (when government spending outweighs tax revenue). Thus, whoever is in government following this election must find a way to increase employment so that it has sufficient tax revenue to fund various struggling public services.

Therefore, this government must keep in mind that a key determinant of employment, and thus social mobility, is the prevalence of transport. In the case of wealthier residents this is typically not an issue, as they can afford to buy at least one car for their household, but it can be a major obstacle to employment for those living in poorer neighbourhoods. This is because in these less-prosperous neighbours there is often a dearth of vacancies, meaning that locals who are geographically immobile struggle to find employment. Some may not own a car due to a lack of funds, some due to physical impairments which prevent driving, and some due to a lack of parking space in the absence of large driveways and garages. Furthermore, poorer individuals who for one reason or another struggle with or are averse to driving cannot afford taxies, and they may struggle to find friends who are willing and able to provide lifts.

This is why quality public transport is vital to the regeneration of such communities. Without functioning public transport, these communities are cut off from job opportunities as well as public services such as healthcare and libraries, perpetuating a cycle of despair. When the residents cannot find employment, they cannot afford to send their children to university. In turn, the children remain locked into the same lifestyle or, seeing low potential earnings for themselves, may be tempted to turn to crime to provide a lavish lifestyle. Better access to public transport is the first step to solving this problem, especially if the various modes of transport are well-integrated and part of an overarching, cohesive plan.

For example, it makes sense to have more public transit stops in poorer neighbourhoods since poorer residents are more likely to make use of services. Public transport in this country also needs to be more affordable in order to properly entice people to use it, especially in the case of the rail network. If a public transport revamp is conducted successfully, there is little doubt that it will benefit the country both economically and socially.

Public transport is not just good for the economy; it is also good for the environment. With Labour pledging a ‘Green Industrial Revolution’ and the Lib Dems touting a ‘Green Economy’, politicians clearly recognise the electorate’s concern for the environment. Therefore, improving the transport infrastructure in this country will kill two birds with one stone, attracting the workingclass vote alongside that of climate campaigners. The UK is now lagging behind on its provision of public transport when compared to much of the rest of the developed world, especially the likes of Scandinavia and Japan, and this is likely to be a key influence behind the rise of inequality in this country.

Furthermore, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that those who commute by public transport, instead of by car, lead more active lifestyles. This by itself will not solve the NHS crisis, but the promotion of healthier lifestyles will help to prevent the obesity-related diseases which are putting a strain on healthcare resources. Another related policy area which is being somewhat overlooked at this election is the quality of the United Kingdom’s cycling infrastructure. When compared to, for instance, the Netherlands, the UK’s network is once again put to shame. While the UK may be more bike-friendly than big nations like the US due to smaller cities and relatively less traffic, the absence of separated cycle lanes in towns and cities means that it is not a valid mode of transport for novice cyclists. Studies on this area have shown that the primary determinant of cycling safety is whether there is a physical barrier separating cyclists and cars. In the UK, cycle lanes, located on the road, are more exposed than separated cycle paths, meaning that – given that cycling on the pavement is considered an offence – inexperienced and younger cyclists often do not feel confident enough to travel by bike. Not only does this result in increased emissions as they use alternative modes of transport, as well as a more sedentary lifestyle, but it also causes cycling safety to plummet as drivers are less used to dealing with cyclists on the road. Consequently, it is clear that putting measures in place which encourage the use of bikes as well as public transport will result in a healthier, more mobile, and more prosperous Britain.

The Labour Party has proposed to “build a sustainable, affordable, accessible and integrated transport system” in its 2019 manifesto through public ownership of train providers as well as some bus services. It has pledged to reinstate 3000 previously-cut bus routes in order to support rural communities and promised to complete the full HS2 route to Scotland. In the absence of a manifesto (the Conservative Party manifesto has not been released at the time of writing) it is much harder to judge Tory transport policy, though they have addressed the disruption to train services during strikes.

Ultimately, investing in public transport as well as cycling infrastructure will be expensive in the short term. However, it is likely to be effective in the long term since it addresses the issue of geographical mobility, one of the underlying drivers of economic growth. Significant investments in public transportation infrastructure will ultimately prove to be the rare policy that is both economically and socially justifiable. If the next government of this country really wants to help lift thousands out of poverty, it will be public transport investment, and not Brexit, which will achieve this. It remains to be seen whether politicians are too myopic to effectively address this issue – whether their words are just empty pre-election rhetoric.

The Irishman Review

0

Martin Scorsese’s latest film is nothing short of epic. With a nearly three and half hour run time, a 159 million dollar budget, and a cast that includes Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, and Joe Pesci to name a few, The Irishman is not built on half measures.

The Irishman tells the story of the real Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro), World War II veteran turned truck driver who begins stealing his company’s steaks to sell to the Bufalino crime family. Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci) immediately takes a shine to him, and Frank soon becomes one of the family’s most trusted hitmen. Russell introduces him to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), head of the Teamster’s union, who needs his help to combat the growing pressure from rivals within the union, as well as from the federal government. The two become close, but after Hoffa is sent to prison for fraud and loses his grip on the union, his actions become more and more problematic for the mafiosos, forcing Frank to choose sides.

The saga spans three decades, a fact that caused numerous problems in development. Scorsese opted for new anti-aging technology instead of having younger actors step in for the early years. This choice proved costly, however, inflating the budget and leading all major studios to turn it down. That is, until Netflix stepped in, giving him free rein.

Hot on the heels of Alfonso Cuarón’s Oscar-winning Roma, The Irishman shows how quickly Netflix is becoming a serious player in the world of cinematic production.

Although the technology isn’t perfect and it is initially odd to see De Niro slightly pixelated, the shock doesn’t last. If anything, the de-aging gives us more time to watch these actors at work.

And they don’t disappoint. De Niro is perfect as the reserved, emotionally stunted Frank, who never gives much away. Pesci, who came out of retirement for the film, is riveting as Russell, whose demure, calculating demeanour makes a change from the brash violence of the characters we’re used to seeing him play.

But Pacino steals the show. He shines as Hoffa, endowing him with all the charisma and hubris of a Shakespearean king. He manages to find the balance between fiery and soft, unpredictable and trustworthy. He does this so masterfully, in fact, that the audience actually finds themselves feeling sorry for the man with ties to the mob. 

Yes, it’s a Scorsese mob film, but this is new territory. The world of the gangster is unravelled; the glitz and glamour are stripped away and we see the ugly consequences of a life of crime. Gangsters grow old and lonely, with nothing to show for their choices. The last 30 minutes creep up on you and stay with you.

There is a sense of weight in the last moments. The main cast and Scorsese are all in their seventies, and it’s very likely we’ll never see a film like this again. As the old Frank is forced to look at his own mortality, the audience is forced to say goodbye to this kind of filmmaking.

Fight for student accommodation giant IQ begins

0

The world’s two largest property investors, Blackstone and Brookfield have joined bidders for IQ, a UK student accommodation company.

As reported by the Financial Times, five potential bidders are considering purchasing the London-based company, expected to be sold for around £4 billion.

IQSA (IQ Student Accommodation) owns and operates 67 student accommodation sites in the UK, from Dundee to Plymouth, with over 80 per cent of its business in Russell Group universities.

IQ’s Oxford Accommodation offers students private rooms in Alice House, located just over Magdalen Bridge in Cowley.

The pair, an American and Canadian business respectively, have long sought student accommodation as a revenue stream, and are preparing bids for a pre-Christmas deadline. Sources close to the deal suspect the cost to reach £4 billion.

Goldman Sachs and the Wellcome Trust, the current owners of IQ, are preparing an “initial public offering” of the business.

Goldman Sachs, which owns 70 per cent of IQ, joined forces with the Wellcome Trust, a medical research charity, in 2016.

Greystar, a US property company, Mapletree, a Singapore real estate investor, and Patrizia, a German real estate firm, are the other companies which are considering bidding for IQ.

Interview: Layla Moran

0

I meet Layla in St Anne’s College, right in the heart of her constituency Oxford West and Abingdon, where she has just spent the day on the ground campaigning. She’s all smiles as we sit down to talk. I ask her about her day, and what issues constituents have raised on the campaign trail.

 “It will surprise no one to know that Brexit comes top. This is an election that was caused because of the impasse of Brexit. We were a remain constituency, I was voted in to try and stop a hard Brexit and I think people see that I’ve been working really hard on that issue. Local issues come up too: school funding; I used to be a teacher, I’m education spokesperson for the party.”

I move on to asking her about the importance of the student vote and issues on education, which she addresses enthusiastically.

“We have to remember in the 2017 election, I quite unexpectedly overturned nearly 10,000 Conservative majority to win this constituency by 816 votes. That was at a time when lots of students did vote; that 816 could well be won or lost on if the students in this constituency decide to vote or not.”

Moran almost quit the Lib Dems over the tuition fee policy. I ask how the Lib Dem education policy has changed since the coalition and where she stands on it now.

“I’ve done student surgeries before and what I hear as top of student concerns is actually mental health. If tuition fees are a graduate tax why don’t we call it that and be more transparent about that.

“On the flip side I spend a lot of time talking to vice chancellors and they are incredibly worried that if you write off all student debt what happens to the budgets to deliver great courses. I think anyone who wants to go to university should find a way to be able to do that and we shouldn’t be artificially capping the numbers because there isn’t the money for places. I think tuition fees have been a positive thing in some ways. More and more disadvantaged students are now going to university and it is right that they should.”

I ask her whether the Lib Dems would consider a coalition this election, and why it happened in 2010.

“At the time we said we’d work with the largest party, but we didn’t predicate who that would be. This time it’s a bit different. For two reasons, one is called Boris Johnson and the other is Jeremy Corbyn. Boris Johnson is the worst of the two: I was never a Tory and I’m naturally centre-left leaning. I think those liberal values we all live by in our progressive society are not shared by Boris Johnson. 

“In terms of equalities, this is a man who called women in burqas “letter-boxes”. This is someone who I could never put into Number 10. On the flip side, Jeremy Corbyn needs to be honest about where he is on Brexit – we know he spent all of his parliamentary career essentially being a Brexiteer. Our leaders: pick a side!

“The other side to it is that many people will know I am half Palestinian. I actually applauded much of the work that Jeremy Corbyn has done on Palestinian rights over the course of his career. However, the fact that he hasn’t been able to contain people in his party who use the cover of Palestine to say anti-Semitic remarks, and hasn’t been able to get a grip on that, I think to myself if you can’t tackle this big issue in your own party then how would you do that as Prime Minister for other issues. I can’t, in all good conscience, use my vote to put either of them in Number 10. We have ruled out coalition with both of them.”

In an article in the Independent, Moran discussed the toxic culture in the House of Commons, and I raise it now, and alleged that Boris Johnson was encouraging hate crimes through his dismissal of death threats against female MPs.

“Yes, absolutely. In the past it has been associated with an old boys’ club; we’ve seen how the Oxford Union operates sometimes. I think there are some people in Parliament, Boris Johnson is absolutely one of them, that love shouting at each other across the floor of the house. I remember the first time I asked a PMQ I was actively shouted down by all sides of the house.

“Boris called the abuse female MPs face on social media ‘humbug’. When you say things like that you almost give permission for those people who want to hurt people to do that. 

David Cameron and Boris Johnson came from similar backgrounds, through the same education system and the same university. I ask if the coalition with the Tories a mistake.

“I voted for it when we had our special conference. What I was hearing from the electorate at the time was that that’s what they wanted. They didn’t want an outright conservative majority government and for us, we had always said we wanted to change the electoral system. At the time, we thought that this was our chance to put Lib Dem policies in place. We stopped them from doing some of the worst things that they wanted to do in coalition. At the time, it felt like that was what the country had asked us to do, and we needed to prove that coalition can work. We made mistakes in coalition but I’m not convinced that going into it in the first place was the wrong thing to do.

The political landscape in the last 10 years, and indeed the Liberal Democrats, have changed dramatically. Is ask if this election is just about Brexit.

“I think for a lot of people it will be. Everyone votes for different reasons. We go canvassing and you ask people what really matters to them and it varies a lot. But most people realise this is almost a pseudo vote for what I think should have actually happened: a referendum on whatever deal with the option to remain. I’m worried though that people who really are sick of Brexit will vote for Boris Johnson because of his “get Brexit done” slogan. That to me is the biggest lie that’s being told in this election. The deal is just a deal to do more deals: it’s the start of a process. Meanwhile with Labour you’re talking about renegotiation, another referendum, and more deals along the way. 

“Our stance of stop Brexit by revoking Article 50 means we’re standing up for what we believe in: we’ve never wanted to leave, and this is being honest with people about that. It’s also the only way to actually make Brexit stop.”

How to get away with murder: claim she consented

0

Warning: this article contains detailed descriptions of violence including sexual violence

Grace Millane, a keen hockey player and recent graduate from the University of Lincoln, was fulfilling a lifelong ambition when she set out in 2018 on a gap year travelling the world. The first six weeks were spent in South America, throughout which she kept in close touch with her parents and two brothers. Next came a stint exploring New Zealand’s North Island. On December 1st , Grace sent her family a picture of a large Christmas tree in the centre of Auckland. The next day, 2nd December, was Grace’s 22nd birthday, and when she did not respond to birthday messages her family became worried. It quickly emerged that she had not returned to her hostel the previous night. Urgent pleas were issued for information on Grace’s whereabouts, and her father and uncle flew to New Zealand to assist police with their missing person case.

The search did not last long. On 9th December 2018, Grace’s body was discovered inside a suitcase, buried in a shallow grave in a nature reserve just outside Auckland.

After sending the picture of the Christmas tree, Grace had gone on a date with a 26 year old man she had met on Tinder. CCTV footage shows the two talking and kissing in a series of bars before returning to the man’s flat. We’ll never know exactly what happened in that flat on the night of December 1st, but a pathologist’s report indicates that Grace was killed by strangulation, forceful enough to burst blood vessels in her nose and eyes, which continued for five to ten minutes, and that she was likely restrained while she was strangled to death. Internet search history shows that the man then watched pornography, took intimate photographs of her body and planned how to dispose of it, and went on a date with another woman while Grace lay dead in his flat. In court, however, his claim was that everything he did to Grace was consensual, and her death was a tragic accident.

The jury rejected this explanation, and the anonymous man was found guilty of murder on the 22nd of November this year. However, this came after a trial in which details of Grace’s sex life were paraded in front of the court and the world press. “Grace Millane was member of BDSM dating sites”, said a headline in the Evening Standard. The New Zealand Herald went with “The girl behind the headlines: Boyfriends and hangovers”.

There are obvious parallels with high profile rape cases, in which the victim’s sex life is publicly pored over for reasons to disbelieve that a crime was committed. The difference is that unlike after a murder, someone who has been raped has consented to come forward, knowing what that entails, and crucially, is alive to give her side of the story.

This is not an isolated case. The campaign group We Can’t Consent To This was set up in 2018 following the death of Natalie Connolly at the hands of her partner. He claimed that Natalie’s fractured eye socket, internal bleeding, blunt force trauma to the head, and bleach poured over her face were the result of consensual sexual activity. He was found guilty only of manslaughter, and sentenced to less than four years in prison. Since then, We Can’t Consent To This has documented 59 similar cases stretching back to 1979. Twenty of these— a third of the total— were in the last five years. The cases recorded by this group involve UK women ranging in age from 16 to 66, many of whom were in relationships already known to be abusive. There has not been a single case of a man killed by a woman where this defence has been claimed.

In a statement for Cherwell, We Can’t Consent To This noted that “just under half the time these claims work in getting a lesser charge like manslaughter, a lighter sentence, or the woman’s death not being treated as a crime at all […] We must stop blaming women for their own homicides.”

Links have been drawn between the increasing frequency of ‘rough sex’ defences and the rising popularity of sex acts inspired by violent and misogynist pornography. For instance, once the preserve only of the most sexually adventurous, strangulation— also known as ‘choking’, ‘squeezing’, or ‘breath play’— is now a mainstream occurrence in pornography. Consequently, many women feel it is expected of them by sexual partners, and a third of UK women under 40 report being non-consensually strangled, slapped, or spat on during sex. Strangulation is a common feature of about two thirds of the deaths recorded by We Can’t Consent To This, and is often seen in rapes and robberies where women are the victims. Women’s Aid reports that a woman is strangled to death by her partner on average every two weeks in the UK, and that non-fatal strangulation in an intimate relationship predicts a sevenfold increase in the risk of later fatal violence.

Labour MP Harriet Harman has recently drawn attention to the ‘rough sex’ defence, asking for a review into whether the sentence of Natalie Connolly’s killer was unduly lenient. Speaking on Woman’s Hour last December, she pointed out that this is not the first time we have seen lawyers arguing that murdered women were ‘asking for it’. Until 2009, it was possible for a charge of murder to be reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation, making a person supposedly less culpable for their actions. Cynically called the ‘nagging and shagging’ defence by barristers, it was often used in domestic homicides where a female partner had been unfaithful, had moved on after the end of a relationship, or had simply got on her partner’s nerves one time too many. One instance in 1997 saw a man sentenced to just three years in prison for strangling his wife to death, after she had allegedly provoked him by moving a pot of mustard to the ‘wrong’ side of the table.

In either case, women are being held morally responsible for their deaths at the hands of their partners. Just as with rape, homicide victims now risk being subject to an incredibly intrusive dissection of their personal lives in the public forum. And just as with rape, we are told that there has been no crime; that she asked for it, wanted it, or somehow had it coming.

Whether or not she did indeed ‘ask for it’ can be difficult to determine, but ultimately this is hardly relevant.

Consider this: in an infamous case in 2001, a German man was found to have killed and eaten software developer Bernd Brandes— with his consent. Brandes had responded to an advert posted by Armin Miewes on an online message board for their shared cannibalism fetish; his willing agreement to the entire process is clear from the video they made together of Brandes’ killing. Despite this, Miewes was eventually found guilty of murder, and jailed for life without the possibility of parole. Evidently there are some actions for which consent is no excuse.

As the crown prosecutor in Grace Millane’s case rightly said, “you can’t consent to your own murder”.

In the UK, it has also been established in case law since R v Brown in 1993 that consensual sexual activity is not a justification for causing any injury that is more than ‘transient and trifling’. It would seem then that, by definition, any sexual activity violent enough to have caused death— strangling someone to the point of unconsciousness, say— would be illegal whether or not the victim had consented to it. The trouble though is that the defence will argue that the injuries were only ‘transient and trifling’, that she died unexpectedly during sexual activity which, while rough, was not so violent that her consent would mean nothing legally.

What can be done about this? One possibility would be to make non-fatal strangulation a specific offence, so that injuries resulting from it could not be deemed ‘transient and trifling’. Currently it is classed as a battery, the mildest form of assault; but the gendered nature of strangulation, the number of deaths associated with it, and the fact that it is often sexually motivated in my view warrant an upgrade in severity.

Another possibility would be to revise and strengthen guidelines as to what evidence is admissible in court. For sexual offences, there are rules regarding what questions can be asked on a victim’s prior sexual history, and under what circumstances. The increasing frequency with which female victims’ sex lives are dredged up in homicide cases might suggest that similar rules should be implemented for these crimes as well.

It would also be good to see greater sensitivity in how these cases are reported. The BBC, for instance, ran a headline saying that Grace Millane “died ‘when sex act went wrong’”. It was widely pointed out on social media that we ought to expect more from the BBC than uncritical repetition of the excuses given by accused murderers.

What we really need, however, is a society-wide shift in attitudes towards violence against women. The fact that this defence is used so often, and is picked up so readily by the press, suggests that we are resistant to holding men responsible for the violence they commit, and so their victims shoulder the blame instead. We see it in the phrase ‘sex game gone wrong’, often used to describe these deaths— yes his hands were around her neck, and yes she died as a result, but it was nobody’s fault really, it just ‘went wrong’.

With the increasing eroticisation of violence against women via pornography, advertising, and social media, it is hardly surprising that sex is being used as a justification for women’s deaths. Even back in 2000, the defence lawyer for the husband of 32 year old Mandy Barclay was claiming that she died as a result of “sex that narrow minded people would call kinky”— suggesting that to object to sex that literally left a woman dead was to be prudish and repressed, to not move with the times.

As Louise Perry from We Can’t Consent To This wrote in Standpoint magazine, “Cases like [these] are symptomatic of a wider culture which views violence against women as a normal and acceptable part of sex, and there is no silver bullet for that problem.” For every woman killed by supposed ‘rough sex’, there will be thousands more who have come to expect pain and degradation as part of their sex lives, and thousands of men who are unabashedly aroused by inflicting it. Until we challenge that, the fatalities, and the light sentences for those responsible, will continue.

Review: Macbeth

“I have no spur

To prick the sides of my intent, but only

Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself

And falls on the other.”

If one were to wrap up Shakespeare’s Macbeth with one word, ‘ambition’ would be a good fit. The Renaissance tragedy, first performed in 1606, centrally explores the potential of such ambition and its incessant menace to turn destructive, as well as the intoxicating nature of power – most pertinent themes far from withered today. 

Accordingly, Tom Runciman’s production was ambitious in its creative aspirations for such a classic masterpiece. This was marked by the very start of the play: as the spectator is just starting to get accustomed to the witchy laughter ringing through the studio, the lying body of one of the sisters comes to life on a leafy backdrop, transposing one from the Scottish highlands to a more modern tropical jungle, an overall innovative rendering of the fantastic element of the drama. 

Throughout, the actors and direction successfully conveyed to their audience some of the play’s apogees and ethos. Harry Berry’s performance of Macbeth’s soliloquies, lent authenticity through facial expressivity and impressive clarity of diction, provided a comprehensive insight into the complexity of the character’s vacillating temper. Lola Beal as Lady Macbeth, then, complemented him by her convincingly embodied charm and strength. The crowning of Macbeth with his Lady laying her head on his shoulder in an intimate embrace effectively synthesised the tenderness of their bond, a motif repeated in a more intense form when Macbeth comes back from murdering Duncan. When Macbeth publicly loses his mind and flings his drinking cup down to ground, her firm orders to the banqueters further bring out her characterisation and the support she lends to her dependent husband. The centrality of their fatal tie is memorably underlined once last as Macbeth in his pain and despair upon her death stamps on his crown, presaging his end. 

It was in thoughtful decisions and details that the sound and lighting supported the performances of the actors. The voices of the witches, first with on stage appearance of one but later without any accompanying physical presence, measured well the ascending madness taking possession of Macbeth. In a similar way, having no lighting when the protagonist initially hears that the woods of Birnam began to move and only a dim glow as he threatens his messenger skillfully highlighted his somber descent into the paranoia of tyranny. 

Just as Macbeth eventually suffers the consequences of his ambition, however, the production at times lacked some of its tragic character and vehemence. For some of the arguably defining instances of the drama could have benefitted from some more intention and intensity, such as the “unsex me now” scene. The moments of brilliant height, too, were occasionally undermined by a rather meagre and sudden build up, perhaps a result of the cutting out of a great deal of the original text. Moreover, even though the jungle setting was coherent on itself, it remained a choice unexplained by the general performance; and the red fairy lights were on the verge of kitsch, almost becoming an understatement of the play’s grave themes. 

Still, putting on Shakespeare’s Macbeth is quite a challenge, and in this light Collarbone production was notable. I left the BT studio with the voices of the witches haunting my head and could not sleep at night, a testimony that this production caught the looming and ever-relevant force of the tragedy.