Kofi Annan visited Oxford this afternoon, speaking as a guest of of honour at the opening ceremony of the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights.
The Institute, which is part of the University’s Law Faculty, has been housed in Mansfield College since October 2017. It aims to conduct research in the field of human rights law and encourage public engagement in human rights issues.
The Institute states that part of its mission will be to “establish a vibrant community of graduate students”, as well as “host outstanding scholars of law and other disciplines”.
The initial idea for the Institute came from human rights lawyer Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, who will leave her position as Principal of Mansfield College at the end of the academic year.
The new institute will be directed by Professor Kate O’Reagan, a legal practitioner and scholar, who was appointed by Nelson Mandela to be a judge on the Constitutional Court of South Africa in 1994.
Both Kennedy and O’Reagan spoke at the ceremony, with the chancellor of the University, Lord Patten, also making a speech.
Baroness Kennedy thanked the donors to the institute, who were gathered to watch the ceremony, whilst Lord Patten paid tribute to Mansfield College “for having the energy to push this project through”.
Following increasing calls for Oxford to fully divest from fossil fuels, the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC) collected 169 letters to send to the vice chancellor penned by students, academics, and alumni alike. Their intention was to show the University and its senior management that many were concerned about the Oxford’s investment policies.
Below is the 170th letter of these letters, published exclusively in Cherwell, ahead of the campaign’s rally tomorrow.
Dear VC Richardson,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with members of the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign in May. We were heartened to hear that you think about climate change often and are concerned with the present and future impacts of a warming planet. However, we were disappointed by your opposition to fossil fuel divestment and the arguments you made to support that stance: we respond to them here. We ask you to read this letter, alongside the 169 others we shared with you, and consider the democratic mandate of your community and the 2014 Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee’s (SRIRC) recommendation to divest from fossil fuels.
You argued that: Divestment will not have any tangible impact against climate change; it’s better to focus on research and green campus initiatives.
The power of divestment lies not only in the financial risk that it poses to the fossil fuel industry, but more importantly in the role it plays in stigmatising it. Oxford’s own Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment described the stigma created by the global divestment movement as “the most far-reaching threat to fossil fuel companies and the vast energy value chain”. The Smith School study linked divestment movements throughout history and the stigma they created to major political changes: most notably in Apartheid South Africa. After many years of political inaction on climate change, it is clear that more pressure on policy makers is needed. However, unless the fossil fuel industry’s disproportionate social and political influence is weakened, the scales will continue to favour fossil fuel companies.
The threat posed by climate change demands that we take action at all levels. The University is not on track to meet their carbon reduction target of 33% by 2020/21. The Environmental Sustainability report from 2016 revealed that in fact the university has increased its net carbon emissions by 3% since 2005/2006. For an institution as large and influential as the University of Oxford, there is an opportunity for both significant internal reduction of carbon emissions and a much wider symbolic stand. Divestment is not the single solution to the climate crisis, but it is a crucial piece of the puzzle.
Oxford’s endowment is larger than all the other UK universities that have divested, so it is much more economically risky.
Oxford’s endowment size and cultural influence make it all the more important that we divest, as it will inspire other institutions, and not only universities, to follow suit. There are numerous examples of institutions divesting much larger sums without economic ruination: NYC’s $189 billion pension fund (Oxford’s endowment represents approximately 3% of the NYC pension fund) and the University of California system ($9.8 billion) are only two. The University of Edinburgh, the UK’s third largest university endowment, divested fully from fossil fuels in February.
In the last few years, a record number of studies have demonstrated that fossil-free funds can achieve competitive returns. Furthermore, divesting may actually reduce the risk of holding devalued assets. To keep warming below 2°C, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has shown that 68% of known fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground. At Oxford’s Smith School, these vast reserves of unburnable carbon are considered ‘stranded assets’, because they are likely to see their economic life curtailed due to a combination of technology, regulatory and/or market changes. Why do we want to invest in fuels that will very soon become economic fossils?
Oxford receives many scholarships from fossil fuel companies, so we cannot divest.
Scholarships are hugely important for Oxford’s academic success and for its access efforts, and we would not want this damaged. However, these schemes guarantee companies a continued influx of graduates into their workforce; they are unlikely to discard this, even following divestment. Durham, Nottingham, and Bath Universities have all pledged to divest and have continued to receive BP scholarships and research funding. After the recent controversy over BP chief executive Bob Dudley’s remarks concerning Cambridge University’s divestment campaign, BP stated that its support of the University through scholarships was to be regarded as separate from Cambridge’s investment status.
Thank you for reading our letter. We hope you will agree that divestment need not harm the University; in fact, it would make it more financially stable going into the future. More importantly, a decision to divest would make Oxford a force for good, sending the message that one of the world’s most revered institutions (and training grounds for its leaders) is committed to a renewable-based future. A pledge to divest would be the best legacy you could possibly leave from your time as Vice Chancellor. We, and those who choose to work and study in Oxford in future generations, would be incredibly proud.
Yours sincerely,
Oxford Climate Justice Campaign
The campaign will hold a rally tomorrow at 4pm outside the Clarendon Building, urging the University and its colleges to divest.
Contributing to the Cherwell has launched the careers of many influential figures in the world of journalism, including Evelyn Waugh, Evan Davis, Hadley Freeman, and even Rupert Murdoch. Among this list of names should have been, in time, Paul McClean. I say ‘should have’, because in September last year Paul was tragically killed in a crocodile attack whilst on holiday in Sri Lanka, aged only twenty-four.
His loss robs us of a rare talent and an all-round good man. Coming from a state comprehensive to read Modern Languages at LMH, he found time to be deputy editor of this paper alongside excelling at his studies, before going on to graduate with a First and establish himself as a promising name at the Financial Times with his in-depth coverage of EU affairs. Of course, I didn’t know any of this when I first met him at primary school aged four. I just knew that his wicked sense of humour, infectious smile, and near-superhuman gift of the gab made him someone it was impossible not to be friends with. Being something of a nervous goody-two-shoes myself, I recall that the few occasions I got in trouble usually involved being so lost in conversation with Paul that we failed to notice that the rest of the class had long since fallen silent and the teacher was staring at us balefully; it is a mark of the quality of his company that I never resented these occasions. Reading any of the innumerable personal tributes that have poured in from his friends and colleagues, it is clear that this warmth and charm characterised all his relationships, and in the end it is these personal qualities above all that will make him so sorely missed.
However uniquely tragic his circumstances, Paul isn’t the only gifted and hardworking young journalist to have had their career unfairly cut short. As the London-centric media sector economises by relying ever more heavily on unpaid internships (the National Union of Journalists report that 82% of new entrants to the profession start out as interns, 92% of whom receive no pay), getting a foot on the ladder is increasingly impossible for the thousands of talented people who don’t have the luxury of generous parental funding or a family home in the capital. This not only hurts the life chances of those aspiring reporters, it’s also damaging for the industry and for society as a whole. At a time when the rise of ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ has made rigorous journalism which covers all angles more important than ever before, we cannot afford to let the Fourth Estate become the preserve of a narrow pool of people all sharing similar privileged backgrounds.
With that in mind, a group of Paul’s old friends had the idea that the best way to honour his memory would be to raise funds for a permanent Paul McClean Prize in Journalism at his old college, which will award annual grants to budding reporters enabling them to undertake internships and training courses that might otherwise be out of their reach. I am very proud to be joining them this July to take on the National Three Peaks Challenge, which involves cramming 3064 metres of climbing and 462 miles of driving into 24 hours, as we attempt to scale the tallest mountains in Scotland, England, and Wales all within the space of a single day. It’s sure to be a gruelling ordeal, and the initial reactions of my family and friends have been somewhat less than reassuring; the response of the first friend I mentioned it to was to say “you know that isn’t physically possible, right?” The internet assures me that it can in fact be done, but given that my regular exercise routine doesn’t extend beyond the occasional jog along the flat-as-a-pancake Thames towpath on a sunny day, I suspect it’s going to prove a bit of a shock to the system.
Still, it will all be worth it if we can reach our sponsorship target and create the prize fund in Paul’s name. His legacy as a friend and a colleague already speaks for itself, but with your support we can add something more and ensure that some lasting good comes out of his untimely passing.
“Being sorry and coloured at the same time”, says the Lady in Orange, “it’s so redundant in the modern world”. She has a point, I think, as I sit wide-eyed in a crowded theatre, so sure that she is speaking directly to me.
It is hard to forget, in moments when I am feeling particularly sorry for myself, that I am “coloured” (ignore the archaic phrase for a moment). It is hard to forget, being in Oxford, being reminded of all this privilege that I have (that I’ve worked hard for, that my parents did not even dare to imagine, that their parents could not dare to imagine), that I am coloured. I don’t have the time to feel sorry for myself, I have work to do – right?
Women – ladies, girls – walk, dance, skip across the stage, barefoot, donned in bright colours, owning their bodies, taking up space. Beautiful against the dark walls of the Burton Taylor Studio – careful lighting and costume display the beauty of melanin – these women are, I think selfishly, me.
For Colored Girls is a series of twenty interconnected poems, a “choreopoem”, that explores, with an excruciatingly painful candour, personal stories of violence, loss, love, hope, and renewal. It is not a linear narrative. Actors moved seamlessly from poem to poem: dancing to Candy at one moment, then sitting together on the floor and noting that the “nature of rape has changed” the next. Yet it is not a jarring experience. The mediums of poetry, music, and song mean that the alternating narratives flow into one. There is not one story that belongs to the Lady in Red, or the Lady in Green: all stories belong to all. The characters speak in vernacular, repeat themselves, appearing to only realise the weight of their words once they have been spoken. Even when not speaking, sitting onstage watching their co-stars express themselves, the coloured girls inhabit every tale, silently encouraging their differently coloured counterparts to speak.
And this is what the play is about: allowing the coloured girl to speak.
It is very rare that this happens in real life – trust me. When it does, the coloured girl is “an evil woman, a bitch, or a nag”. She cannot raise her voice too loud, because she might scare someone. However, in the theatre, trapped by social convention, closed doors, and silent audience members, the coloured girl is able to speak. This is the beauty of Ntozake Shange’s piece; this is the beauty of performing such a piece in a space like Oxford. An intimacy that focuses solely on the lives of black women, the beautiful and the haunting, is something that Oxford desperately needs.
This is Oxford’s second all BAME performance, the first with an all-female cast and crew. It is odd and disconcerting that this is a first in 2018. Yet this makes For Colored Girls all the more poignant. With a play so focused upon taking up space, reconfiguring what is mainly a white male mode of expression – particularly when considering crew – these students have turned Shange’s work (interestingly, the second play by a black woman to reach Broadway, after Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun) into a force that promises to bring change to theatre in Oxford.
Plays and productions of this nature have a pressure to deliver something life-changing: something that turns a place like Oxford into the utopia all the prospectuses present it as. Shange’s piece definitely gestures towards this, and the brilliant performances by each and every member of the cast had me leave the theatre with a new-found sense of peace, both in myself, and the direction the world is moving in (don’t worry, by the time this is published, I’m sure something in the news will ruin that). But this is not, at least to me, what For Colored Girls is meant to do. The play stresses the stories that black women keep to themselves, it stresses how healing speech can be, and significantly, stresses that black women are allowed to feel pain.
The colours in this play – in the costume, in the lighting, in the words – are all expressions of blackness and womanhood, and the foregrounding of this is integral to this production and every production of For Colored Girls. However, the universalising factor of this play, shown skilfully across the hour and twenty minutes, is how one discovers and loves their self. The rainbows, displayed teasingly at the edge of either side of the stage, reflect the final image of the coloured ladies holding each other, becoming whole through and with each other. The process of the play is not complete, certainly, but, to quote Shange, they ‘are movin’ to the ends of their own rainbow’. We are encouraged to do the same.
Local community at the Wall of Truth following the silent March, 14th May 2018
“Justice has to be about change. That’s what we want in the year after. We want to see change. We don’t want to see a massive report that people just sit on and gathers dust somewhere.” Moyra Samuels is clear with me about what she wants in the wake of Grenfell. On 14th May this year, eleven months after the deadly fire tore through the tower, she, and others from the community it left behind are demonstrating in Parliament Square. In half an hours time, at 4:30pm, MPs will head into the Houses of Parliament to debate the petition backed by Stormzy, Adele and 156,000 others to ‘build public trust in the Grenfell Tower inquiry’, specifically by adding additional panel members to sit alongside Chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick.
On Friday 11th, just prior to the debate, and prior to the demonstration, the government granted this request. Despite plans to add two members to the inquiry panel, Moyra and many other activists representing a number of advocacy groups are here regardless. “It’s our job to actually raise the questions and for the community to reflect and think on them and think ‘oh this is a victory in some ways, but what kind of victory? A small victory? A big victory?”
She’s speaking with me just after addressing the crowd in front of a huge banner reading ‘United For Grenfell’. In the grass to our side is a mosaic of 72 pictures, the faces of the 72 people that died in the fire. A key representative of the Justice4Grenfell campaign, she is a veteran of demonstrations like this, and is already generating turnout for the next: “Let’s make some noise on the anniversary to remind Theresa May, to remind this government that actually, we will not be silenced, we haven’t gone away and we will not be silenced until we have justice.”
With this country’s abysmal track record on investigations of national tragedies, it’s little wonder why campaigners like Moyra are so concerned about being given small concessions only to be denied the big victories they’re after. As shadow justice secretary and Labour MP for Leeds East, Richard Burgon said in Westminster Hall later that afternoon “Far too often in this country politics seems to act as a dam, actually holding back justice rather than helping justice to flow. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Bloody Sunday – examples of when the state did not use its great powers to deliver truth and justice but instead blocked truth and justice for years and years.”
It is for this reason that the community is demonstrating outside a debate which has already been won. A small victory has been achieved, a bigger one is immediately in the crosshairs. “We want to have a say and vet who goes into this inquiry nothing less. Two’s not enough” says Clarry Mendy who joins Moyra and I after the demonstration is over and the debate has begun. Having lost two relatives to the fire, and being a part of Humanity for Grenfell, she met with Theresa May last month to apply further pressure on the government to grant additional oversight to theinquiry.
Discussing the strength of community involvement in Ladbroke Grove with Fahim Mazhary, a member of the area’s faith community, the tower’s burned out remains still loom over many of the streets we walk down. The fire itself started with a electrical malfunction of a fridge freezer in a fourth floor apartment and quickly spread to the buildings insulation and cladding. The installation of these materials by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) council, to provide better insulation and “significantly improve the appearance of the building”, underwent many rounds of ‘value-engineering’ before being finalised. Communications with the first likely contractor, Leadbitter, who had been in the process of sourcing non-flammable cladding, ceased after they quoted a total project cost of £11.3 million, over the £9.7 million budget. Despite the council having £235 million available, their tenant management organisation putpressure on their new preferred contractor, Rydon, to cut costs. After this point the decision was made to switch from zinc cladding to flammable aluminium composite with a flammable plastic core for a saving of just £300,000. The Guardian also reported that independent fire safety experts have stated that, had the initial proposed materials been secured and installed by Leadbitter, the fire would not have spread very far or caused the loss of life that it did.
The building regulatory framework which guided the council and contractor’s choice have since been found by an independent review to be “not fit for purpose”. England’s ‘approved inspector’ approach means authorities don’t have to sign off on the safety of buildings so long as one of a number of approved organisations do. In contrast to the government’s own specifications, at the time of the Grenfell renovations, one of the larger inspectors, National House Building Council (NHBC), was issuing guidance which stated the flammable Celotex insulation used on Grenfell could be covered with B grade cladding (as reported by Newsnight). Worse still, the BBC has revealed that the actual cladding used, made by Arconic, while initially tested at B grade, was actually known by the company to have since failed tests and been downgraded to C and E grades.
This convoluted regulation and inspection process has cast into doubt the integrity of the safety guidelines. So too has the fact that Mark Allen, then technical director of Saint-Gobain, the company which made Grenfell’s flammable insulation, actually sat on the Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC) at the time of the fire, a board which advises the government on building and safety regulations.
In addition to the initial failures during the refurbishment, the organisation which managed the tower, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) persistently ignored the fire safety concerns of residents for years before the event. In a series of online blog posts, writers from Grenfell Action group documented their safety concerns and the KCTMO’s disinterest in resolving them. With stunning prescience one post notes “Unfortunately, the Grenfell Action Group have reached the conclusion that only an incident that results in serious loss of life of KCTMO residents will allow the external scrutiny to occur that will shine a light on the practices that characterise the malign governance of this non-functioning organisation.”
Discussing the community’s relationship with local authorities with Fahim two months before the demonstration outside parliament, he told me that many in the community feel a long-standing mistrust. It’s exactly this kind of persistent neglect of community concerns by the RBKC and KCTMO at almost every stage of the process which has caused such an issue.
One might expect significant ramifications for the corporations, public bodies and individuals responsible for these fatal oversights. Indeed, both the Leader and Chief Executive of the RBKC council resigned almost immediately after the fire, as did the chief executive of the KCTMO, Robert Black. However, The Guardian obtained evidence indicating that Black was still receiving a six-figure salary, at least until September last year, for co-operating with the inquiry.
Both Celotex and Arconic removed from sale the flammable insulation and cladding that fuelled the fire but, while a part of the company which was subcontracted to install the cladding has gone bust, the main contractor Rydon, made a profit of £14.3 million last year according to The Guardian.
More serious than the physical damage to property, however, is the adversity that’s been inflicted on the communitysince the fire. Only 74 of the 210 households displaced by the blaze were, 11 months after the event, in permanent accommodation. Only 68 were in temporary solutions, while 59 who had accepted accommodation offers were still living out of hotels. “‘Why are you so slow in housing? What is wrong with your housing policy?”
Moyra tells me the community has persistently asked the council, “all we get back is more flip flap. Their housing policies, you look at them and you go ‘I can’t understand a word they’re saying’ and often, when you read the subtext, it very often comes out as very much blaming one group of residents off against another. There are the survivors who were in the tower and there are the underlying blocks, and they were also impacted.”
Questions about the Council’s housing response seem warranted: The New York Times reported the council had spent approximately £210 million pounds trying to find suitable accommodation by April. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, MP James Brokenshire, reported, at the May debate, that the council had 300 properties available “to those who need them”. If the council’s rehousing policy has not been badly executed, it has, at best, been poorly communicated. Addressing the crowd outside Parliament Moyra made clear her position on the council’s inability to find suitable housing: “We don’t want to hear excuses about, you don’t have flats that are disability adapted. Find them! Spend the money on them and give people decent houses to live in!”
Perhaps most worryingly, The Guardian reported in October the mental health response was the largest of its kind in Europe, with over 11,000 people likely to be seen by professionals. Clarry makes clear that it’s not just those who escaped the tower who have been affected in the wake of it’s incineration: “there’s not just bereaved and survivors, there’s evacuees, there’s localresidents and they’re being poisoned every day and having to face the crematorium in the sky”. In addition to services provided by the NHS, Fahim also emphasised to me the continued efforts of local churches, mosques and faith communities in providing, counselling and assistance in relation to trauma sustained as a result of the fire.
Clarry is not ambiguous about the government’s response on the whole: “Unsatisfied. If we were weren’t so unsatisfied we wouldn’t be here [outside Parliament] today.” When I asked what people want to see in the next year Moyra tells me: “We’d like to see the beginnings of the implementation of whatever comes out of the first phase of the inquiry. That those recommendations, the deficits that are identified, that that is implemented immediately, not waiting for two years until the inquiry is over to then implement it because actually, in the rest of the country there are people living in dangerous buildings and we need to make sure that a Grenfell doesn’t happen anywhere else.”
People gather with hearts for the silent march, 14th May 2018
Initially the nationwide response was disappointingly slow. The Telegraph reported that, after two weeks, and failed safety tests from 75 high-rise buildings around the country, landlords and councils were being told to continue insulating and cladding their buildings using the standard protocols despite the obvious risks of doing so. The Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated that, by January, of the 312 high-rise buildings which had failed fire safety tests, only 26 had had flammable cladding totally removed, and only three of those had had replacement panels installed. Worse still, of the 158 social housing buildings around the UK now known to be clad with unsafe materials, over a third (54) were still not in the process of remediation work eleven months after Grenfell was consumed by fire fuelled by such materials.
Recently, however, the response has improved. The government announced it would make £400 million available to remove dangerous cladding from tower blocks owned by councils and housing associations.In the RBKC alone, the council is planning to spend £3.5 million replacing all 4,000 fire doors on it’s social housing. While news like this is obviously encouraging, and indicates the beginnings of a concerted effort to secure safe living spaces, Fahim tells me that there is still residual anger in the community and that, after such a long history of neglect, it will take the council a long time to regain the trust of some residents.
On the corporate side of the issue, the large ‘approved inspector’ NHBC has withdrawn it’s guidance that some insulation-cladding combinations explicitly shown to be dangerous could be used on buildings, but only after Newsnight’s reporting on the issue.
Speaking at Wadham last term on the topic of Grenfell, local resident and hip-hop artist Lowkey spoke of ‘invisible violence’ – the slow process by which disadvantaged communities are marginalised and put at risk. Almost by definition, it doesn’t make headlines until it is too late,until after avoidable disaster strikes. Though the Grenfell Tower fire was started by a faulty fridge, the causes of it’s fatality lie in exactly this kind of uninterested neglect from the government, businesses, but perhaps most importantly, the public.
The fire has been referred to as a tragedy in three acts, opening with years of neglect, reaching a tragic climax on 14th June 2017 and closing with a sustained failure of government to act quickly to secure justice for this community and safety for others at risk. What the last year has shown us is that Grenfell guarantees nothing. Until reporting from Newsnight, NHBC did not revoke dangerous building advice. Until petitioned, the government did not grant additional oversight to the inquiry. Still, the community has no guarantee the additional panel members will be people they trust. The shadows of Hillsborough and Stephen Lawrence mean many are still wary about the miscarriage of justice.
It is the community that has been so hard hit that has supplied the bulk of personal support throughout this time: you can’t walk out of Ladbroke Grove tube station without seeing posters and fliers attached to walls and pavements advertising community groups, events, demonstrations and art exhibitions. Leaders and followers of all faiths have united to provide support. And, on the 14th of every month, the silent march of hundreds, if not thousands, brings people together tomake its procession around the area from the Methodist Church to the Wall of Truth, united in commemoration and solidarity.
The silent march, 14th May 2018
Speaking again, this time in front of the Wall of Truth at the end of the silent march in May, Lowkey addressed the community he credits with so much following the crisis: “we are in the situation today where our victories are gradual. Our victories are gradual and they are hard fought, but they are victories nonetheless and we have to celebrate them”.
If Grenfell is to guarantee a safer future for people in all communities, people away from those directly affected need to join in in voicing a demand for these victories and remember, even when predictable tragedies aren’t making headlines, “justice has to be about change.”
Wolfson College Day Nursery has been rated “inadequate” by an Ofsted report published on Friday.
The nursery, which is run by Wolfson College’s governing body and located on the college’s grounds, was rated “inadequate” in all four areas of assessment – the lowest possible standard.
The regulator raised concerns about children’s dignity and safety, saying that staff “focus too much on ticking assessment boxes.”
The report added: “Breaches in safeguarding requirements have a negative impact on children’s safety and wellbeing.
“Staff do not receive sufficient support to protect children who may be at risk of harm from extreme views and behaviours.
“They do not follow up children’s unexplained absences appropriately, and not all staff ensure children’s privacy and dignity during nappy changing.”
The report also emphasised that outcomes for children at nursery are inadequate, saying that children who enter the nursery with lower levels of development “progress too slowly and do not develop some of the key skills they need for school.”
It continued: “The older and most-able children have few opportunities to engage in challenging, high-quality learning experiences.”
The regulator, Ofsted, did however note that some parents were happy with the nursery’s support.
The report also said: “The college body shows capacity to improve and implement change. Staff supervise children closely and follow suitable risk assessments to help prevent accidents.”
A spokesperson for Wolfson College told Cherwell: “The Nursery is an essential part of the service that the College offers our students, fellows, and community members. We are proud that it has been part of Wolfson since 1974 and we are acting on all of Ofsted’s comments urgently.
“We welcome Ofsted’s feedback and take it extremely seriously.
“Immediately following the inspection, we started implementing a comprehensive plan of action to raise the standards in the Nursery.”
The college’s plan of action proposes the development of an improvement plan, the appointment of a new Deputy Nursery Manager, and the implementation of a mentoring scheme for nursery staff.
The spokesperson added: “We are proud of our Nursery and are determined that Ofsted’s helpful report will allow it to prosper and thrive in the decades ahead.”
The nursery received a “good” rating when it was last assessed in 2014.
On its website, the Nursery says that “few can offer such excellent care” providing “a relaxed, safe and stimulating atmosphere.” The nursery says it fosters an “encouraging, consistent and positive attitude towards all children.”
St Hilda’s JCR has elected a Love Island Rep, charged with the responsibility of purchasing communal snacks for viewers in the college.
In a meeting on Sunday, a motion was proposed to create a ‘Love Island Fund’. It noted that Love Island was currently airing, that many JCR members had enjoyed screenings of the show, and that “the Love Island group chat is popping off”.
It also affirmed the JCR’s belief that “Love Island is the pinnacle of culture”, and that “we need more popcorn to lob at the screen when Adam is being a big oily snake”.
After a friendly amendment was made to reduce the funds given to the rep from approximately £500 to £100, the motion passed with an overwhelming majority.
The proposer of the motion, Poppy Price, told Cherwell: “The Love Island fans community at Hilda’s has expanded rapidly in recent days and I felt it was only right that this community be represented in JCR matters.”
In her hust, the college’s newly elected Love Island Rep, Antara Jaidev, told the JCR: “I believe I should be Love Island Rep because Love Island is the most important thing in my life right now.
“I think the biggest challenge for me will be the transition from my current role to Love Island rep. Although JCR President will also provide me with the skill set that I require for this new challenging position, I’m looking forward to moving onto bigger things.”
It’s Saturday, and I’m in the Plush smoking area after a day of friends, fun, and painful sunburn at Oxford Pride. I survey the scene: a little outrageous, a smidge decadent, and ultimately a defiant, wonderful celebration of my community and our values. After a night of dancing with friends, I walk home, satisfied with a day that has made me proud of who I am.
But what if I never made it home? What if the LGBTQ+ friends you have never returned from their day of celebration? After they’d vanished, what if the police came to your door, but instead of helping you find them, dragged you away too?
We live in 2018, and have busy lives, so it is easy to forget that the nightmarish vision I’ve described has been the lived experience of gay men in Chechnya for the last fourteen months.
Since April 2017, when the ‘gay purge’ began, The Guardian and others collected harrowing testimonies from those who escaped Chechnya. Victims described horrific torture, electrocutions and beatings, with men being forced to ‘out’ friends so that they too could be abducted and terrorised. It is estimated that several hundred gay men have been detained, with many killed by the authorities or their families.
The Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, refuses to acknowledge this persecution ever happened, claiming there are no gay men in Chechnya against whom these crimes could be committed. He recently stated that gay men are ‘devils’,‘not human’, and are ‘for sale’, claiming they make accusations of human rights abuses for profit. Although Amnesty International have attempted to renew pressure on the Russian government and Chechen authorities, the plight of these men has largely slipped from international attention. There has as of yet been no investigation to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Attempts to dehumanise, denigrate, and destroy the lives of LGBTQ+ people in Chechnya are not some rogue outlier, they are symptomatic of the homophobia promoted by the Putin regime across Russia. It exists in legislation, like the 2013 ‘gay propaganda’ law to prohibit the spread of ‘non-traditional’ relationships, and in the courts, seen in a 100 year judicial ban on Moscow Pride. Chechnya is an extreme example of intolerance that makes the lives of many LGBTQ+ Russians unbearable.
Last week, I made the choice to throw myself back into consciousness of this issue, and went to the Oxford Union to confront ambassador Alexander Yakovenko on his government’s inaction. Now there are many confident LGBTQ+ Oxford activists who would have done this with ease, I am, unfortunately, not one of them, so when I began to ask why no perpetrators of crimes in Chechnya had been brought to justice, and when LGBTQ+ Russians would be granted rights as human beings, I was terrified.
But when Yakovenko opened his mouth in response, I realised my nervousness didn’t matter. In his rambling reply, he exposed himself, and the harrowing moral depravity that lies at the heart of the Putin regime’s treatment of LGBTQ+ people. The lies flowed, and in them, the truth of how little the ambassador and his government cared about the lives of those persecuted in Chechnya. Killings and torture were never acknowledged, as he parroted the line of extremist Kadyrov that ‘It’s difficult to say if there are any gay people’ in the region. The more he spoke, the more far-fetched his claims became: that there are fewer gay people in Russia so homophobia is less of an issue, that if gay people did not like their experience in Russia, they could simply move elsewhere, and finally, the pièce de résistance, his insinuation that questions I raised were not an issue because Putin had spoken with Elton John.
Now, to be the representative of any megalomaniacal dictator must be a difficult thing, but to be one with such a limited, absurd repertoire of lies at your disposal must be a real challenge. Some of his responses, about gay sports teams and ‘friends who are gays’, would have been funny, if they did not typify a culture of wilful ignorance towards the everyday plight of gay people in Russia. Ambassador Yakovenko was the embodiment of diplomatic geniality, desperately attempting to hide the mountain of suffering and bloodshed perpetrated by Putin’s supporters in Chechnya. Anecdotes were told, goodie-bags handed out, and the audience laughed. A civilised man, lying with a smile on behalf of savagery, is the most disturbing kind of deception.
Now you’re probably wondering, when facing such senseless disregard for human beings, what can be done? I’ve been asking myself the same question. The first task must be to keep the issue on social media and in the news. It may seem trivial, but a cause without advocates is lost from the beginning. We cannot let Chechnya again slip from memory, or we’re doing Putin’s work for him. Secondly, we must keep applying public pressure, exposing the deceitful lies that senior Putin supporters use to downplay these crimes. It’s expected that monsters like Kadyrov will espouse denials and mistruths, to see ambassador Yakovenko doing so makes it clear that from top to bottom the Putin regime actively tries to bury the human rights abuses committed in Chechnya. We owe it to LGBTQ+ Chechens, and those who suffer under Putin’s homophobic dictatorship across Russia, to use our free speech and position of privilege to expose these crimes. If we don’t, who will?
Dining Al Desko takes place in a company office that feels like the internship of your nightmares: where postgraduate dreams go to die, with Pret Coffees offering little consolation. Employees are hiding in toilets, working in the basement, and in a moment of pure tragicomedy, demoted to the point of being deskless.
Alastair Curtis’ tale of office politics achieves something quite special: giving us belly laughs and moments of poignancy that don’t feel forced. Yet it is undoubtedly the coherence of direction which gives it a degree of professionalism beyond what we would expect from student theatre. (A BT play consisting of three intertwined monologues, with no one leaving the stage, could be a punishing prospect).
The standard of acting is masterful from the beginning, as Julia Pilkington eases us in with her confident performance as receptionist Julie, an endearing yet tragic figure on a career path to redundancy, despite her hilariously earnest efforts to be useful. Pilkington’s performance is brilliantly convincing as Julie refers to herself in the third person – “Julie is going places because Julie doesn’t take her lunch” – and as she tells us (but mainly herself) that her demotion is a possibility for ‘reinvention’. Her pained optimism is delivered with excellent comedic timing.
Chris Page has his work cut out as Tom from finance, an equally pathetic character who is in denial about everything, from his doomed marriage to his gambling addiction. The play reaches its absurd climax when Tom’s delusions and the consequences of his actions clash head on. Page fully comes into his own as Tom’s situation becomes dire, and delivers the most aggressive crisp eating you are likely to see. As is the case with Julie, this is a nuanced study of character in a pressurised environment, Curtis finds hilarity in how both characters cope when the odds are stacked against them.
If you saw Dining Al Desko six months ago when it was first put on in Oxford, the addition of Kate Weir as the new intern Trish is the reason why it is totally worth seeing again. Her performance is very, very funny. Trish is the kind of character Ricky Gervais was missing in The Office; the co-worker no one wants to sit beside. She is as arrogant as she is ambitious, a social media ‘influencer’ who speaks in hashtags (one colleagues breakdown is summarised as ‘#mental’). Considering this, the script and Weir’s performance does a great job of making us root for her anyway. Trish is not the unfeeling female careerist archetype that we have become accustomed to seeing. She has a tear in her eye when she fires Julie, and the way she tells us about the harassment she faces from her boss Mark, as though its almost an afterthought, is particularly poignant. The pause Weir takes before Trish mumbles ‘super cool’ is uncomfortably long, it breaks up the high energy of the play in a striking moment intimacy. Here the play reveals the substance beneath the funny stuff, Trish isn’t caricature but a real person whose experience brings home the conversation that’s happening about harassment in the work place.
When this play was first reviewed by Cherwell six months ago the verdict was that the script carried the play and made up for any lapses in performance. That is certainly not the case now. Here, the direction and the performances bring hilarity and poignancy to the script and tease out its potential. Dining Al Desko has the feel of a professional production, and at a student price, there’s no good reason to miss it.
Students have reacted with disgust at a recent University statement on trashing, with senior management seeming to imply that Oxford’s homelessness problem was due to the generosity of students.
In an email sent to students, the University’s junior and senior proctor – Cecile Fabre and Mark Edwards – wrote on the subject of trashing students after their Finals examinations.
The proctors noted that “Oxford’s students have a highly developed social conscience, as is evident from the number of homeless people who come to seek assistance in this city”, and that “needless waste of food is an aggravation of their distress”.
They also said that trashing makes the University look “like one giant Bullingdon Club”.
The tone and wording of the email expressed widespread backlash among students and online, with users describing the statement as “sickening” and “grim”.
Just been forwarded this email from Oxford University senior management, in which they claim the city's acute homelessness problem is because homeless people come here to take advantage of generous students. pic.twitter.com/3q185P5K25
In a statement to Cherwell, the Chair of On Your Doorstep, Oxford SU’s homelessness campaign, Alex Kumar, said: “I think we would all appreciate it if the University management opted to step up to take meaningful action to help those who go homeless in our city – perhaps by allowing local charities to use unused properties in the city as shelter this winter – rather than cynically weaponise Oxford’s homelessness crisis as an attack on students.”
Attention was also raised to a “patronising” email from the Balliol dean, who “wondered how many homeless people on the Oxford streets have witnessed trashing this summer, and thought to themselves whether the money spent on shaving foam, sprayed Lambrini, non-biodegradable glitter and confetti, and the clean-up costs, could perhaps have been put to better use.”
Earlier this term, Cherwell revealed that the University spends £25,000 a year on the security and cleaning costs of post-exam trashings.
The University proctors had sent the email to students to express their disappointment that “the trashing in north Oxford extended beyond the premises of Ewert House to the Co-op, and that some students brought ballistic mechanisms which are a hazard to other students, to the public and not least to their inventors”.
They also noted that “even an ordinary celebration which involves the spraying of alcohol is technically a criminal offence”.
The University’s Senior Proctor, Mark Edwards, told Cherwell: “It is an easily ascertainable fact that there are more homeless people on the streets of Oxford than on the streets of most comparably-sized towns in England. This has been the case so long as either proctor can remember…”
He added that “the fact that homeless people come to Oxford from elsewhere is clearly acknowledged. This is a credit to the city’s excellent facilities, but also, we believe, to the generosity of students, townsfolk and tourists.”
