Wednesday 29th April 2026
Blog Page 813

OULC speaker invite sparks anti-semitism concerns

Greg Ritchie
-
1
OULC speaker invite sparks anti-semitism concerns

Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) has invited a controversial journalist, who has denied the existence of an anti-semitism problem within the Labour party, to headline an upcoming event.

Richard Seymour has also expressed repeated support for the anti-semitic terrorist group Hezbollah.

The revelation comes only a month after the club released a statement condemning anti-semitism within Labour, and calling on leader Jeremy Corbyn to apologise for the party’s “consistently inadequate response to internal anti-semitism”.

The OULC co-chairs have told Cherwell that they were not aware of Seymour’s “more controversial views”, and have contacted him to “clarify his positions in the hopes [sic] that these have evolved over time”.

Seymour is a Marxist writer and activist, who blogs from the page Lenin’s Tomb. Jeremy Corbyn was heavily criticised for speaking alongside him at a Momentum event in 2016.

In the same year, Seymour wrote a blog post concerning anti-semitism allegations within the Labour Party entitled ‘Yes, it is a witch hunt’. The post begins: “By now, I think, it is being quietly acknowledged in most sensible quarters that Labour doesn’t have an ‘antisemitism problem’.”

Seymour has also written: “Antisemitism is more than the arrangement of words: in its classical phase it was a structure of oppression promulgated through law and perpetuated through various social arrangements. There is nothing like this today: there is, however, a racist, expansionist state that purports to speak for the Jews.”

On the same blog, Seymour has expressed “unconditional, but not uncritical, support” for Hezbollah, a proscribed terrorist group who strive for the elimination of the state of Israel

In addition, he faced widespread criticism when he commented on a video of an Israeli journalist: “He makes me sick. He’s a piece of shit. He’s standing there complaining that the army isn’t helping the colonists keep the Palestinians in their place. Fuck him, they should cut his throat.”.

He also provoked widespread condemnation after he posted hate speech against Falklands’ veteran and burns victim, Simon Weston.

In a comment, Seymour wrote: “If he knew anything he’d still have his face”. He later issued a lengthy apology on his blog.

OULC co-chairs, Anisha Faruk and Ray Williams, told Cherwell: “Having spoken with Oxford JSoc, we all agree that in the past Seymour has made comments which are unacceptable and we have asked him to clarify his positions in the hopes [sic] that these have evolved over time and to make sure that our event will not be used to air any offensive and discriminatory viewpoints.

“If our concerns are not assuaged, we will not hesitate to rescind the invitation. However at the event, which will be open to all, he will be firmly and constructively challenged by the Chair on previous comments made.”

They also told Cherwell: “We were not aware of his more controversial views – we knew him simply as the author of ‘Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics’, a well regarded book about the political conditions that lead [sic] to the 2015 Labour leadership election result.”

President of Oxford University Jewish Society (JSoc), Jacob Greenhouse, told Cherwell: “We are heartened by OULC’s response and commitment to cooperation with us. In particular, we are looking for a denunciation of some of Seymour’s past comments, including reference to the antisemitism scandal being a ‘witch-hunt,’ and his allusion to an ‘Israel
Lobby.’”

The termcard also includes an event featuring Rupa Huq MP. Huq attracted controversy in 2017 after publicly defending suspended Labour MP Naz Shah on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Shah had come under fire after a social media posts, including one that suggested Israel should be moved to the United States.

Huq defended Shah’s actions and a “silly mistake” and compared them to a post she had shared of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on a zipwire next to Barack Obama. Huq also insisted: “Naz Shah did not write any anti-semitic tracts. She just clicked share.” She later apologised for her comments.

OULC has faced scrutiny for their own internal problems with anti-semitism in the past. In 2016, co-chair Alex Chalmers resigned in protest at what he perceived to be a large portion of club members having “some kind of problem with Jews”.

After a year-long investigation, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party voted to clear the two student members under investigation for alleged anti-Semitic behaviour – a decision Oxford JSoc labelled “utterly shameful”.

Richard Seymour was contacted for comment.

Inequality at universities is a symptom, not a cause

Olivia Webster
-
0
Inequality at universities is a symptom, not a cause

Our country is facing a damning educational inequality problem, which has always existed and isn’t going to disappear anytime soon. The unrepresentative nature of our best universities is an important issue to tackle, meaning it was all the more disappointing when the government’s grand solution to this is using ‘sanctions’ against these institutions.

This is the brainchild of the government’s Education Committee and, as with most things stemming from government committees, it’s not a very good idea. The lack of clarity on what being sanctioned entails is frankly alarming. In truth, I’m not sure policymakers even know themselves, with Nicola Dandridge vaguely claiming that sanctions could involve ‘fines’, ‘encouragement’, and ‘engagement’. Issuing some of the richest institutions in the world with a fine doesn’t seem like it’s going to get results. With ‘encouragement’ and ‘engagement’, the government are simply encouraging from the side-lines, while not doing anything themselves.

The committee has also given no indication of how they’re going to measure what they consider to be ‘social injustice’. Are they just going to fine any university that doesn’t have enough students deemed as sufficiently poor or disadvantaged? Those from low intake backgrounds don’t want pity, token places, or positive discrimination: they want the support that will allow them a fair chance at making a successful application. Instead, the government is using these petty punishments against elite universities as a smokescreen for their own chronic failure to address the UK’s educational inequality issue. Elite universities do have a responsibility to help. Yet, the government needs to acknowledge that the problem starts with their failing education system.

Independent schools nurture from birth a host of well equipped applicants who could sit an Oxbridge interview before they were toilet trained. In contrast, low funding, high staff turnover, and lack of information means state schools aren’t providing people with the tools and encouragement they need to apply to Oxbridge successfully.

Furthermore, the media’s focus on inequality at Oxbridge only perpetuates the stereotype they are trying to eliminate. Prospective applicants read these demonising articles and wrongly assume that Oxbridge isn’t for them. So, thank you David Lammy for setting back outreach work once again. And thank you to the government, whose use of elite universities as a scapegoat just prevented another talented teen from applying.

Instead of making hollow statements about sanctions, the Education Committee should take a long hard look at the secondary education system. If they participated in the conversation Oxbridge outreach teams are trying to have with hopeful applicants, instead of fuelling the vindictive media, then we might begin to see the changes we all hope for.

Letter To: My Estate Agent

Daanial Chaudhry
-
0
Letter To: My Estate Agent

Starting an email with ‘Dear Miss Choudhury’ might be a good idea, if you were emailing a woman whose surname is Choudhury. However, I am neither a woman, nor is my surname Choudhury. Despite having met me twice, you continue to send me a plethora of emails addressed this way. As an estate agent, a bastion of modern living, I cannot comprehend why you would assume my gender, and what’s more, assume wrongly.

But at least you’ve found me a house, I guess. “How many bedrooms does it have?” A perfectly reasonable question one of my housemates asked as we arrived at our first property, bright-eyed and bushy tailed. “Erm… I’m not sure, I’ll have to go back to the office and find out,” you replied. Now, I’m no expert (I do PPE), but it doesn’t take a degree in Maths from Oxford to count the number of bedrooms in a house. Anyway, ignoring the fact you prep for viewings less than I do for tutes, we were not disheartened and still excited to view our first property.

A three (or four) bedroom flat that could be reached through a dusty alleyway, above a local Chinese takeaway. This was the place we were looking forward to calling home for the next year. Alas, we might have been able to call it home if had you brought the right set of keys. So we waited for you to run back to the office, the rain beginning to slightly dampen our spirits.

We never found out if the flat had three or four beds. No, when you eventually returned, you informed us that this flat had already been let to someone else. Thanks a bunch. I could’ve spent my afternoon doing way more productive things, like sleeping, or watching Friends, or viewing houses with a competent estate agency (if there is such a thing).

Anyway, we eventually found a house, with the appropriate number of bedrooms, and, even better, it wasn’t already let out to another tenant. I thought that our interaction with you was over. But, no.There I am sitting in the library, writing my essay, with only six minutes to the deadline, relying on my 72 words per minute typing speed to help me reach that all-important word count – and then you call. And call again. And again. Not a good time Philippa. And if someone doesn’t pick up, why don’t you take the hint? Maybe I’m just not that into you.

When the shoe is on the other foot however, you suddenly start to play hard to get and take a week to reply to my emails. My tutor conducting research in remote parts of Kenya replies to her emails quicker than you. If I’m not mistaken, you spend most of your life in an office in Oxford, with WiFi, a computer, and a contract that says your job is to respond to my emails. Not impressed, Philippa, not impressed.

Best,

Daanial CHAUDHRY

PS: Please fix the sink before we move in.

 

Lets Talk About: Porn

Francesca Whitfield
-
0
Lets Talk About: Porn

In line with the Digital Economy Act (2017), new regulations regarding age checks for viewing pornography online are being brought into force by the UK government. These checks are meant to ensure that under 18s will not be able to access online pornography, by making users validate their age.

This begs the question, if the government are taking these stringent step, how far is pornography harmful to our society? One clear misnomer is the narrow definition of pornography we are often presented with by the mainstream media. In reality, we have to understand pornography within the wider context of the society responsible for producing it. Perhaps a better question is not to wonder what impact pornography is having on society, but what impact society is having on pornography.

The word was originally used to reference the recording of prostitutes in words or drawings; but since the Victorian era, pornography has expanded and evolved in its definition.. The boundaries between pornography and the closely-related erotica have become  blurred – what distinguishes one from the other, when both are designed to incite sexual arousal?

I believe the distinction relies on the negative connotations which the word pornography encompasses. Two things which are without question harmful to society are child pornography, and the prevalence of children viewing pornography. Indecent images of children and their distribution have been illegal since the passing of the Protection of Children Act (1978). Nevertheless, this has not stopped these despicable acts against children, nor the self-distribution of nudes and images by Under 18s amongst their peers. Both of these issues are known to have an impact on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children. It is obvious that we need to protect children from the negative impact of pornography.

We must also not ignore the very recent problem of ‘revenge porn’. This is where a sexual image or video sent in private may be distributed to people it wasn’t intended for, and in worst case scenarios, uploaded to pornographic websites for the gratification of strangers. This cannot be seen as anything but detrimental for both children and adults. Indeed, in 2016 an Italian woman killed herself over sex tapes which went viral after an ex-boyfriend uploaded them to the internet.

The distribution of such images and videos clearly indicates a problem in society more broadly with sex and sex related issues. It seems to me that sexting and revenge pornography reflect the way in which sex and relationships are handled in society.

Its hard not to ignore the gender differences within pornography and how women and men are stereotyped within pornographic imagery. Pornography reflects and engenders stereotypes and perceptions already present in society; whilst it may enforce these, they do not originate with pornography itself.

I would argue that the production of pornographic images and video need not be seen as harmful; but we must scrutinise the ways in which its produced and how it is presented to society as a whole. Indecent images of children are clearly morally wrong as they violate those who are unable to protect themselves. However, an adult’s choice and desire to view sexual images of other consenting adults should not be prohibited or banned.

We should instead address the issues which make pornography a contentious topic. We have to make sure that it is subject to stricter codes of conduct. It should not exist as something which takes advantage of vulnerable people, either those who are portrayed or those who view it. It should not pop up unwanted and unrequested on browsers, whether to children or to adults, and it should not be used as a method in which to hurt other people. Pornography should not be used to degrade women, violate trust in the case of revenge pornography, or to indoctrinate children with unrealistic understandings of sex and sexual activity.

I would argue that the harm which pornography has the power to cause, is based its ability to reflect and magnify societal issues that already exist. Therefore, only if it can be produced, used, and monitored responsibly, can it be seen as a valid medium of creative and sexual expression.

Students protest ‘transphobic’ women’s group

Alice Bruce
-
6
Students protest ‘transphobic’ women’s group

A large protest in support of transgender rights was held outside the Radcliffe Camera on Wednesday evening, in response to the ‘TERF’ group Women’s Place holding a talk in Oxford.

The 120-person group gathered at 6pm to display signs and hold speeches from activists criticising Women’s Place for depicting trans people as “monsters”, outing them, and fostering hate speech.

Protesters condemned Women’s Place through the evening as TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) as opposed to inter-sectional and inclusive campaigners for equal rights.

Ribbons, in the colours of the transgender pride flag, were tied to the railings of the Rad Cam to “honour” trans people who have “experienced violence from TERFs and thousands who have committed suicide or experienced transmisogyny and transphobia”.

The Oxford SU’s LGBTQ+ campaign and the university LGBTQ+ society issued a statement on Tuesday evening condemning the meeting.

The join statement described Women’s Place as “one of several groups dedicated to challenging trans people’s existing rights in the UK” and claimed they have “profil[ed] trans women as male sexual predators and vilif[ied] trans activists as violent oppressors of free speech”.

A statement released by Women’s Place on Wednesday says this statement “defames” Woman’s Place and its members and “contains many inaccuracies”.

The talk held by Women’s Place concerned proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), which would include allowing trans people to self-identify their gender and align their legal sex with their gender identity on documentation.

Under the current law, trans people must receive a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria – the state of identifying with a gender other than the one assigned at birth, which requires lengthy assessments by medical doctors and psychologists. Additionally, they must have lived in their “acquired gender” for two years.

Trans people argue that the GRA needs to be reformed, as the current lengthy process means that trans people can’t determine their own personal identity.

Women’s Place was founded in 2017 to discuss the impact of changes to the Gender Recognition act and for “women’s voices to be heard”.

They campaign for “women’s only spaces to be upheld” and express fear that “the provision of single sex services, such as those provided by rape crisis centres” could be affected by changes to legislation.

The organisation’s statement on Wednesday denounced efforts by Oxford students to “shut down” their meeting, and called on politicians to “protect free speech”.

The statement also denied claims that Women’s Place was a transphobic organisation.

“Trans people are welcome at all [our] meetings, and [Women’s Place UK] have already had two trans speakers on the platform who share the concerns.”

One of the organisers of the protest, Jack Doyle, told Cherwell: “There are fears from trans exclusive feminists that men would be coming into women’s spaces. However, there is no evidence to suggest that that would happen.”

Doyle said that “[the Women’s Place talk] is not a free and open discussion by any means. The venue has been kept secret, and no trans people were invited to speak on the panel.”

Characterising the opinions of those who were to speak as “hate speech”, Doyle went on to say, “I don’t think it would be productive to engage with those people, so instead we are having a visible demonstration where people can see us and hopefully disagree” with Women’s Place.

A member of the trans community who spoke at the protest, Clara Barker, was invited to attend the talk but told the crowd that they didn’t think it was an equal or fair panel. They felt that the event would have negative impacts on their physical and mental health, as well as fearing possible altercations.

Nicola Williams, who represented the “Fair Play for Women” group and was one of the panellists at the Women’s Place talk, told Cherwell that she would be talking about laws and how that “at the moment trans rights and women’s rights are balanced”.

Williams said that “it is fine to have trans women in women’s spaces in many occasions” but that “sometimes when sex matters, such as in a women’s refuge, it is important to have a distinction”.

She stressed that “it is just a debate to talk about the law so people know what is happening and get some feedback”.

Regarding the lack of Trans people on the panel Williams told Cherwell: “it is difficult as there aren’t that many trans people who would want to speak.”

Williams mentioned that it was a “shame” that Barker declined an invitation to attend.

She said they “would be very welcome to come.”

Christine, a trans woman attending the event who did not provide her surname, told Cherwell that she thought the Women’s Place campaign was “very positive” as “women do have genuine concerns and they are not being heard by the political elite”.

She described the phrase ‘TERF’ as a slur, saying that she feared that “there are many more women who fear to speak up” and that she wanted dialogue and debate so that an understanding could be reached.

“I am not saying that there isn’t transphobia on this side of the argument. I think at times there is but I don’t think that fundamentally women are motivated by transphobia.”

Hannah Clark, another protestor, told Cherwell that the proposed changes to the GRA were “seemingly progressive” but that she was concerned about the way that service providers could interpret the law, claiming that “women’s spaces, women’s refuges, women’s hospital wards” could be impacted negatively.

Clark is a representative of the ‘Man Friday’ campaign which encourages women to self-identify as men every Friday to protest possible changes to the Gender Recognition Act. When questioned about the protesters’ accusations of transphobia she said that she thought this was “incredibly lazy” and that the event was an “inclusive place”.

Clark told Cherwell: “We are not saying that trans people don’t exist or trans people shouldn’t exist, we are saying if you are going to change the law you need to insure that everyone’s voices are heard…there is not a hierarchy of rights.”

One of the few men attending, who did not wish to be identified, told Cherwell: “Postmodernism has gone a bit crazy, and we are losing definitions.”

“We need to restore balance to our culture and say that a woman is actually a woman, a man cannot become a woman.”

After finishing their protest at the Rad Cam the group of activists marched to the Women’s Place meeting. Members of the group described themselves as an autonomous students who came together from both Oxford and Brookes Universities.

They received endorsement from Oxford’s racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ equality campaigns. Members included trangendered people, a women’s representative from the National Union of Students, and LGBTQ+ community members and allies.

Oxford could face ‘sanctions’ over access inequality, says Education Committee

Matthew Roller
-
0
Oxford could face ‘sanctions’ over access inequality, says Education Committee

The chair of the UK’s House of Commons Education Committee has claimed that elite universities will face sanctions if they fail to address their “social justice problem”.

Speaking at a University Alliance event on degree apprenticeships, Robert Halfon MP said that he wanted to see “elite universities properly being held to account for the numbers of disadvantaged students they admit”.

The Education Committee confirmed to Cherwell that the new Office for Students would consider sanctions.

The body’s chief executive, Nicola Dandridge MP, said in Parliament last month: “There is a whole range of sanctions that can be applied, from encouragement, engagement, and discussion to fines and more interventionist approaches at the other end.

“In the past, the Director of Fair Access could refuse to sign off a plan, in which case the higher fee could not be charged – that was the nuclear option, if you like.

“That was actually quite difficult, because it did not allow for a nuanced range of responses. We have many more tools available to us, which will allow for a more nuanced and therefore more effective engagement with universities.”

Halfon, the Conservative MP for Harlow, warned of a ‘two-tier’ system within UK universities.

“I would like to see the elite universities properly being held to account for the numbers of disadvantaged students they admit – and the support they receive whilst studying.

“Perhaps we should regard universities as elite only if they are providing a real ladder of opportunity to the disadvantaged. Maybe universities should only be seen as ‘the best’ when they lead their students to well-paid job destinations and reduce Britain’s skills deficit.

“The new Office for Students must lead in this. There must be sanctions from the new regulator for those universities who are failing in this regard.”

In March, the Higher Education Standards Agency (Hesa) revealed that Oxford accepted fewer applications from poor neighbourhoods in the 2017-18 academic year than any other mainstream institution.

Just 2.8% of the University’s intake were from students who live in areas classified as the most difficult to engage in higher education.

Following the report’s publication, Labour MP David Lammy – who accused Oxford and Cambridge of “social apartheid” in October – tweeted: “Shame on them. Oxbridge take £700m a year in taxpayers’ money yet are not tackling entrenched privilege.”

Earlier this month, Oxford was ranked as the fourth-most unequal university in Britain in a report by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi).

The results came from calculating the ‘Gini coefficient’ for UK universities based on their share of student entrants that came from the five different Participation of Local Areas (Polar) quintiles in 2016.

A University spokesperson told Cherwell: “Oxford…is committed to further diversifying its undergraduate intake, and to being honest and transparent about our record on access. We have agreed targets with [the Office for Students] and against these we are showing strong performance – particularly in relation to our recruitment of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged post-codes, as well as schools and colleges with limited progression to Oxford.”

Wadham trials new ‘paternalistic’ smoking restriction

Jeremiah O'Mahony
-
2
Wadham trials new ‘paternalistic’ smoking restriction

Wadham will trial a new smoking policy for Trinity Term that limits the act to areas “immediately” around eight smoking bins. The college informed students of the new policy via an email on Tuesday.

According to the email, Wadham “conducted a consultation last term on its smoking policy.”

“As a result, Governing Body has decided that for a trial period lasting for all of Trinity Term, smoking on the main College site will be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the existing smoking bins.”

A map attached to the email marks the locations of the smoking bins, most of which are on the edge of campus. The email continues: “The College will be closely monitoring adherence to the new guidelines, and will review the smoking policy at the end of the term.

“It is essential that these new guidelines are fully respected. If they are not, the College will consider moving to a total smoking ban.”

The email also warned students that there is no smoking bin outside the MCR, “where many smokers currently choose to congregate.”

Wadham joins St Hugh’s college in trialling a smoking ban in Trinity, while seven colleges including St Edmund Hall and Mansfield have blanket bans on smoking.

St Hugh’s decision to trial a ban was criticised by some students as “ridiculous” and “parental.”

When Exeter announced plans for a ban that were later withdrawn, Exeter JCR Disabilities Rep Grace Tully told Cherwell: “Habitual smokers are aware of the drawbacks and danger of the habit, but our community gains nothing from physically and socially ostracizing those of us who do still smoke.”

A Wadham second year told Cherwell: “I’m annoyed at college for further attacking the rights of smokers. I do feel this is just the first step to an outright ban. Such paternalism really isn’t in the spirit of Wadham, in my opinion.”

Wadham SU declined to comment.

College JCRs back all-female festival

Eve Webster
-
1
College JCRs back all-female festival

Somerville and Wadham JCRs have each supported £250 worth of funding for The Sisterhood Festival, a charity music event organised exclusively by and for those whose
identify as women. Mansfield’s JCR has pledged £200 towards the event.

The festival will be taking place on Wednesday 13th June at the Varsity Club and aims to “celebrate the achievements of women in a music scene that is often dominated by men, and creating a safe, empowering and inspiring space for them”. Several more requests for funding are due to be proposed to other JCRs in the upcoming days.

Event co-ordinator, Jess Bollands, a third-year Somerville English student and front-woman
of female funk band Sisters of Funk, was inspired to create the event after hearing about a venue of the same name which was introduced at Glastonbury Festival in 2016.

The venue aimed to create a safe and inclusive space for its “female festival-goers” which Bollands and the rest of the Oxford’s Sisterhood hope to replicate.

She told Cherwell: “I set up the all-women funk band, Sisters of Funk, back in Michaelmas and have been blown away by the reception that we’ve received.

“Having seen first-hand how empowering and inspiring it is to give female performers a platform, I thought it would be incredible to put on an event that could showcase the many talented female and non binary musicians, performers and DJs that Oxford has to offer.”

The festival will also be raising money and awareness for three charities based in Oxford: The Oxfordshire Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre, Syrian Sisters, and The Porch.
The event organisers plan to use the Varsity Club’s multiple floors to showcase different genres of music. Attendants of the event can expect an acoustic stage showcasing female singer songwriters and a cappella groups, such as the Oxford Belles, a main stage featuring funk and soul performers and a drag king, in addition to a rooftop DJ performing
throughout the evening.

The rooftop will also have arts and crafts stalls, as well as drop off stations for students to donate sanitary products and toiletries to Shoebox Oxford, an organisation that packages and sends these items to vulnerable women across Oxfordshire.

Along with support from JCRs, Sisterhood are teaming up withfeminist zine, Cuntry Living, to hold a club night at cellar on the 9th of May in order to promote the night and raise funds. As with the festival, the night has an exclusively female setlist. A committee member responsible for the organisation of the night, Maya Tysoe, said it will be a “fun
filled night of funk and soul at Oxford’s grooviest club, Cellar, to promote its first ever all female festival.”

She said that the night is most importantly a celebration of “all things female” and called it “a groundbreaking collaboration to celebrate the achievements of female artists and musicians and to create a platform to inspire and empower all those who identify as
women.”

Oxford professor banned from driving after hitting child

Abby Ridsdill-Smith
-
0
Oxford professor banned from driving after hitting child

A 97-year-old Oxford professor and war veteran who hit a nine-year-old child after running a red light on Botley Road has been let off with a fine.

Tony Honoré, a law professor and honorary fellow at All-Souls College, denied charges of dangerous driving but was found guilty in his absence at the Oxford Magistrate’s Court on Friday.

Honoré was charged with a £750 fine and a twelve month ban from driving for the offence. The court heard that the nine-year-old, Ragnar Cadogan, did not sustain serious injuries from February’s accident and has since made a full recovery.

Honoré failed a roadside eyesight test after officers arrived on the scene.

Finding him guilty of dangerous driving, District Judge Malcolm Dodds said: “There is no dispute that a red light was clearly displayed and there is no dispute that there are pedestrians crossing on a red light.

“The accident speaks for itself. That is powerful evidence of dangerous driving because how on earth could a reasonable, competent and careful driver travelling down Botley Road not be really obviously aware of a pedestrian crossing, pedestrians on the crossing and the red light?

“This isn’t a case of ‘oops, oh dear’, using the brakes and coming to a stop: he carries on for quite a period of time and what appears to be a state of oblivion as to what is going on.

“That is incredibly powerful evidence to a driver falling well below the standard of what is expected of a careful and competent driver.”

In mitigation, Honoré’s defense counsel said that the accident had taken a heavy toll on the professor, who said it was “the worst thing that happened to him in his life.”

Dodds added: “He said this was worse than the injury he suffered in the war [during the Battle of El Alamein, 1942].

“There aren’t many people left who fought in the Second World War and I suspect he is one of the very few survivors of that battle.

“The accident was terribly traumatic for [Ragnar’s mother] and the only good thing is that Ragnar suffered miraculously few injuries.”

Cherwell has contacted Tony Honoré for comment.

Living wage ‘Norrington Table’ launched

Greg Ritchie
-
0
Living wage ‘Norrington Table’ launched

The Oxford University Living Wage Campaign has launched a ‘Living Wage Norrington Table’, to highlight the “underpaid workers whose labour our university lives rely on”.

The table ranks each college and Permanent Private Hall (PPH) by a range of factors, including base pay rate, job security, and bonuses.

It reveals that six colleges are known to not be paying the Living Wage at the time data was received. Meanwhile, as Cherwell confirmed last term, no colleges pay the Oxford Living Wage, which accounts for the higher living costs in the city and is used by Oxford City Council.

In establishing a ranking of colleges, the campaign first used the set of data was the lowest hourly wage paid to college staff in the previous financial year, and the number of staff paid below the current Living Wage as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation in November each year.

They then factored in the payment of bonuses and the use of perks or incentives. These can help alleviate some of the problems with low pay, with bonuses often being paid at periods in the year associated with high cost pressures such as Christmas and the summer period.

Keble is the highest ranked college, finishing third-placed overall behind PPHs Campion Hall and Blackfriar’s. Surprisingly, however, they are not one of the thirteen colleges accredited to the Living Wage foundation as National Living Wage employers.

A Keble spokesperson told Cherwell: “We intend to pay at least the Living Wage but we do not think that, as Trustees of a Charity, we should be devolving any responsibility to pay and benefits to a third party.”

According to the table, six colleges are not paying the national Living Wage at the time data was received.Two colleges – Harris Manchester and St John’s – intend to implement the wage in May and August respectively.

Meanwhile, Wycliffe Hall and Wolfson have registered non-payment of the National Living Wage but did not reveal current wage rates.

Finally, Magdalen and St Catherine’s did not submit sufficient data, with the campaign using figures from previous years to provide estimates of current base rates.

Outgoing chair of the campaign, Jacob Armstrong, told Cherwell: “The Norrington Table reflects the hard work of students and teaching staff across the university, but often we forget the underpaid workers whose labour our university lives rely on.

“The Living Wage Campaign wants to change that. We have collected data on wages and conditions across colleges and private halls in the university since our inception, and decided to undertake the ambitious task of producing a comparable table based upon base wage rates across our constituent colleges and halls as they stand in 2018.

“A new conversation is desperately needed to address the lack of fair and proportionate wages for non-academic staff, particularly after the City Council has shown such leadership in its recent consultation on the Oxford Living Wage for its employees.”

The Oxford University Living Wage Campaign was founded in 2013 by Oxford students to campaign for a Living Wage for all staff within the university and its constituent colleges.

In 2015, the campaign was successful in lobbying the university to pursue accreditation to the National Living Wage as set by the Living Wage Foundation, currently set at £8.75/hr.

1...812813814...2,581Page 813 of 2,581

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley