Saturday, May 17, 2025
Blog Page 863

In conversation with Jacob Williams, of ‘Open Oxford’ and ‘No Offence’

Maxim Parr-Reid
-
0
In conversation with Jacob Williams, of ‘Open Oxford’ and ‘No Offence’

How do we reconcile freedom of speech in our universities with the desire to avoid causing offence?

One of the most burning questions in uni­versities today is how to protect freedom of speech, without creating a platform for those who hold extreme and hateful viewpoints.

With the advent of social media, the con­versation (in terms of free speech) has moved online.

In light of this, groups such Open Oxford and latterly the Young Liberal Society have been set up, ostensibly as forum to discuss issues couched in the theme of ‘free speech’.

The most prominent of these is Open Oxford. I couldn’t help wondering why Jacob Wil­liams, the group’s founder, took the decision to set up such a forum, especially since it has often become mired in controversy, including most recently with a UKIP leadership hopeful trading blows with students.

I asked Jacob Williams why he set up the group in the first place: “At the time I set up Open Oxford,” Williams tells me, “the Univer­sity was dominated by a climate of extreme intolerance and ideological conformity. It served its purpose of bringing alternative positions within the pale of conceivability.”

Clearly, the group was perceived as playing some role to advance the cause of ‘free speech’, however Williams is far less sanguine about its future: “I no longer think it’s particularly important. It’s been in decline for some time and is now basically irrelevant”.

Williams later suggested how Oxford could preserve freedom of speech: “The University should oppose and condemn all attempts to restrict or punish people for the content of their speech. It should also make the pursuit of ‘viewpoint diversity’ in all areas of its aca­demic and political life a guiding principle”

Jacob Williams spoke frequently about what he saw as a “ruling ideology” and the role played by free speech in subjecting “a ruling ideology” to “rational critique”.

How the university can be subject to critique by an online forum is far from clear, although Williams seems optimistic about the function free speech serves in this respect.

No Offence, the magazine founded by Wil­liams, is not short of its own controversy. Deemed ‘too offensive’ for the 2015 Fresher’s Fair by OUSU, 150 copies of it were confiscated by the Thames Valley Police, following a com­plaint from students.

The magazine contained a graphic description of abortion and a defence of colonialism, and is now available online.

Shed your prejudice and free the Croc

Chloe Dootson-Graube
-
0
Shed your prejudice and free the Croc

Among stylish circles, there is nothing more detested than the Croc. It has been a personal puzzle to me throughout my long and time-worn years, and today I set out to solve that puzzle. What better place to do it, than in the hallowed pages of the Cherwell Fashion section? With this mystery in hand, I approached my editor. “Ellie,” I said. “I’ve had a fantastic idea. I want to write about Crocs. I want to save them. I want to give Crocs back their good name.” To which she replied, “Haha ok,” because this was a conversation we were having over Facebook, and “Haha ok” is the best way of humouring a mad person, who wants to do a dead serious exposé on shoes made out of plastic. So onwards we go.

2007 was a good year for Crocs. They were selling 50 million pairs a year, and had grossed a whopping $850 dollars in proceeds. ‘Crocs’ was the name on everybody’s lips: it was their veritable halcyon days. 2017, however, less so. To mention the word ‘Crocs’ in polite conversation will inevitably draw pained expressions, faux retching, flat out distaste or even some combination of all three. When Christopher Kane sent girls down the runway in embellished marbled Crocs for his SS17 collection, it was met mostly with derision, and begrudging attempts by publications such as Vogue and ManRepeller to put them to the test.

Photography & editing by Zoe Harris-Wallis

This coaxes the question: what happened? From whence did this vitriol come? Some would argue that the hatred for Crocs is more than just skin deep. Just as ‘dutty’ hoops and tracksuits were once hated for their association with the working class (until very recently they were the hallmark of the quintessentially ‘chavvy’ wardrobe, and therefore the subject of related ridicule), could the hatred for Crocs be politically motivated? It seems unlikely. Crocs, as I can now attest, are somewhat pricey and moreover, if genuine, something of a luxury item. To six-year-old me a pair of genuine Crocs generated the same level of awe that a pineapple did for inhabitants of sixteenth century England—they were rare, exotic, and pretty damn snazzy, to use the vernacular of the times.

Is it because they are uncomfortable? Or because they have adverse health effects? Having worn them for a week I can strongly confirm that the porous Croslite (C) soles are most definitely a treat for your podiatric regions. Moreover, any news of related orthopaedic disaster (such as the revelation that they may cause long term foot damage) arose only last year, far after the apex of Crocs’ demise. Is it possible, then, that Crocs are hated purely because they are ugly? In a climate where pool sliders and Birkenstocks (other shoes also once maligned for their apparent hideousness) have made riotous comebacks, such thinking seems bizarre. ‘It’s got to be because they’re fundamentally a bourgeois, centre-right shoe,’ said a friend, without any clarification. “Right,” I swiftly replied. Because I had no idea on what grounds he could possibly be basing this accused political agency, and I did not want to hear the name of Crocs besmirched so.

The political leanings of Crocs aside, I decided the only way to answer the question of their demise was to attain empirical data first-hand, by dedicating my own feet to a week of Crocs. Many people had lots of highly questionable things to say: ‘What are those?’, ‘I refuse to be associated with you until you take those off’, and ‘why have you done this?’ all featured. Some were more complimentary. ‘How high fashion’ said the people who are not sufficiently close enough to be comfortable savaging me. They drew the admiration of an acquaintance at college who is colloquially known as ‘Nike Jesus’. Many a man told me that they ‘rate that so highly,’ which was rather satisfying, but did lead me to question whether it was the Crocs that they admired or the fact that I was wearing an entirely sheer shirt. I was tagged in seven different memes about Crocs. A visiting friend of a friend dubbed me ‘the Croc lady,’ and thus my name was symbollically changed in the group chat.

But do Crocs have sartorial merit aside from working as an offbeat conversation piece? They certainly have practical merit. “One time, my dog Kevin was choking in the garden,” one friend reported. “Had I taken the time to put on real shoes, instead of Crocs, he may not be with us today.” But as a fashion item? I would argue that in today’s world, where they are met with such unashamed levels of venomous contempt, they are the ultimate statement. They promptly do-away with any debates regarding comfort versus fashion: they are both bold, a bright statement and a great footwear choice to cozy tootsies on bitter cold days.

The fact that they are so ‘unfashionable’ in fact automatically renders them high fashion. In today’s environment, I believe that Crocs are the single best investment, and the single most fashionable thing you can wear. Free the croc!

 

Free speech at university has a storied past

Akshay Bilolikar
-
0
Free speech at university has a storied past

Anybody who looks into the history of uni­versities in the Western world, not least in Great Britain, can tell you of their origins in the established church. In the eleventh century, as Oxford University first began its teaching, the private halls existed to teach the nation’s second sons—and it was just sons—the theory and the practices of the contemporary Catholic Church.

The idea of universities as a haven for freedom of expression would have seemed totally alien to the medieval scholar. Though members of the University had, by statute, certain rights not pos­sessed by ordinary citizens, these were linked to the religious nature of the institution and not to preconceived notions of the place of the univer­sity in public life. Most topics remained beyond the realm of scholarly discussion: from the Pope’s supremacy to the King’s authority, the universi­ties did not always harbour enlightenment ideals.

The change began slowly, and it began on the continent. In 1516, just one year before Corpus Christi was founded, the Dutch humanist Eras­mus published The Education of a Christian Prince. Written as a book of advice for new rulers, Eras­mus argued that “in a free state, tongues too should be free.” His humanist ideals are not much heeded: the book is published just as the era of religious persecution begins in earnest across Europe.

Nevertheless, moves towards free expression start to pick up pace as the Renaissance continues. By 1644, John Milton publishes a pamphlet argu­ing for toleration, claiming in his Areopagitica: “The liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, [is] above all liberties.” The Glorious Revolution, 45 years on, confirms “freedom of speech” in parliament with the eleva­tion of William and Mary to the throne.

For much of this era, however, the universities remained behind the rest of society in free speech terms. As late as 1866, a person could only receive a degree from Oxford if they were a member of the Church of England: only a decade prior had fellows and professors been released from an obligation to be ordained ministers. Piecemeal change followed in the early twentieth century as compulsory daily worship was abolished and women’s colleges given statutes.

By the mid-twentieth century, the acceptabil­ity of freedom of expression in universities was beyond doubt. After the turmoil of the war and subsequent austerity, the reaction of students in the 1960s to perceived injustices abroad and at home led to protests across Europe. This was, however, accepted: in policy terms, little may have changed, but the voice of students was as clear as ever.

Universities, by the late twentieth century, were places for young people to exit their comfort zones and be challenged by new ideas. Few believe free­dom of speech rights are under serious threat: a survey by The Atlantic last year revealed that 73 per cent of American students believed freedom of speech was secure or very secure. Whatever the reality may be, we have still come a long way since our universities were first founded.

Rich countries are underperforming on conservation, Oxford study finds

Jacob Cheli
-
0
Rich countries are underperforming on conservation, Oxford study finds

A new Oxford University research project has found that poorer nations are more active with regards to wildlife conservation than their better economically-developed counterparts.

Researchers from Oxford’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) partnered with Panthera, the world’s only organisation dedicated to protecting wild cats, to assess the level of commitment of individual countries to protecting wildlife.

The team created a Mega-Fauna Conservation Index (MCI) of 152 countries to assess their conservation footprint and created a benchmarking system which evaluated three key measures: a) the proportion of the country occupied by each mega-fauna species; b) the proportion of mega-fauna species range that is protected; and c) the amount of money spent on conservation relative to GDP.

African countries topped the list, with Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe leading.

The United States found itself at nineteenth, and a quarter of countries in Asia and Europe were classed as significantly underperforming.

Panthera research associate Dr Peter Lindsey, who led the collaboration, told Cherwell: “This is the first attempt to try to compare the conservation efforts of different countries. We need to be able to compare efforts to create a floating benchmark so that the average effort is pulled up, especially as mega-fauna populations are dropping.”

He added: “Mega-fauna act as a proxy for conservation efforts in general, hopefully in the future the study might be expanded to monitor marine conservation efforts.”

Professor David Macdonald, Director of WildCRU and co-author of the paper said: “Every country should strive to do more to protect its wildlife. “Our index provides a measure of how well each country is doing, and sets a benchmark for nations that are performing below the average level, to understand the kind of contributions they need to make as a minimum.”

The study also explains the reasons for this disparity in contributions to conservation. Mega-fauna are valuable assets and to many less affluent countries their existence provides both a national identity and an economic lifeline in the form of tourism, which provides a high proportion of the GDP of some African nations: for example in 2014, tourism contributed 17 per cent of Tanzania’s GDP.

Dr Dawn Burnham, also of WildCRU, said “What really matters is the idea we have developed, rather than the detail: countries can be ranked in their commitment to conservation, and each country can and should strive to climb the rankings—the details of how the rank is calculated can surely be refined in future, but the idea of the ranking will endure”.

Speaking about the future of the project, Dr Lindsey said: “We will be generally improving the study and making it as fair as possible. Our goal is to have an index that is published annually and the performance of countries regularly assessed.”

At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, developed nations promised to allocate at least $2 billion (USD) per year towards conservation in developing nations.

However, current contributions from developed nations are just half of the proposed amount, $1.1 billion (USD) per year.

Cashew denies bankruptcy rumours

Theo Davies-Lewis
-
0
Cashew denies bankruptcy rumours

One of the co-founders of the popular Oxford start-up Cashew has denied longstanding rumours that the company has gone bankrupt.

Cashew, a mobile app that enables users to send money from their debit card to another user’s account, can be used as a payment method in various Oxford shops and retailers, and expanded to other UK universities during Hilary term.

The expansion meant that the company have been incurring huge fees processing payments.

Despite introducing an ‘instant pay’ mechanism to curb these issues, Cashew wasn’t able to make enough revenue, meaning that the company had begun to run out of money.

In response, the app was removed from the Apple App Store for a short period.

Speaking exclusively to Cherwell, David Hsu, one of the co-founders of Cashew, insisted that the problems are only short term.

“We are a small team and we had to focus all of our efforts on raising money over Easter so that really affected our ability to perform timely withdrawals,” he said.

“We can only apologise to our users for all the inconvenience this must have caused.

“We have hired a team to help out with withdrawals and support messages so everything is back on track. And we’ve also switched to a different bank so withdrawals are faster and more reliable.”

Hsu, who has recently returned from a funding round in Silicon Valley, insisted that the company were in a “very strong position”, and have learned from their past mistakes.

In January, Cashew was caught up in a controversial payment debacle involving kebab vans in Oxford.

It was reported that students had been accidentally paying Hussein through the payments app for post-club kebabs bought from Broad Street’s kebab van, Hassan’s.

Hassan discovered that his customers had been misspelling or simply mistaking his name for that of a rival.

Mr. Hsu said that his team had made improvements to the system.

“In order to minimise costs, we have introduced a top-up system, so rather than us taking small amounts of money from your bank every time you want to pay, you can easily top up a bulk amount,” he said.

Wulfie Bain, President of Oxford University Athletic Football Club (OUAFC), said that the club were relieved to have Cashew as a payment method again: “When rumours spread that Cashew had gone bankrupt, OUAFC withdrew its funds from the app, just as many other people did.

“However, we’ve kept using the app and are delighted to hear that it’s back. At OUAFC we use it for everything, from subs payments to repaying players for transport. It makes my life a lot easier, enabling me to chase up late payments with the request function .”

Mr Bain added: “Every great startup has a few bumps in the road, so hopefully it’s only up for Cashew from here!”

However, not all Cashew users believe that the app can still be a success.

Jack Drury, a finalist at Gonville and Caius, Cambridge, told Cherwell: “I was always taught that if it’s too good to be true, it probably is.

“Cashew initially seemed brilliant: free money, great interface, no charges, instant payouts. But difficulties soon emerged.

“A friend was unable to withdraw over £100 for several days despite paying for the guaranteed immediate service.

“It was impossible to get in touch with Cashew: a phone number I had been given had no response, and the in-app help was also non-responsive.”

“I managed to get in touch with the owner on Facebook via a mutual friend and the payment soon went through,” he added.

“The lack of ability to withdraw the money meant I paid my friend twice so the event could go ahead. Cashew is easy to use, but the problems getting hold of money mean I’ll be sticking to bank transfers, and others say the same.”

But Mr. Hsu told Cherwell that Cashew was here to stay.

“In 2019, there’s new regulation coming out, and that’ll allow apps like Cashew to hook into your bank account and directly debit the money, without any fees,” he said.

“Once that hits, we’ll be able to process money without any fees, and we’ll sell our mobile payments solution to coffee shops and other small merchants, and charge a much lower fee than debit cards do.

“I don’t think we’ll seriously be using debit cards 20 years from now, and hopefully Cashew will be the replacement.”

Breakthrough for Oxford University chemist

Selma Stearns
-
0
Breakthrough for Oxford University chemist

The first synthetic retina made of soft materials has been developed by an Oxford University researcher, with potentially life-changing conditions for those with retinal conditions.

Vanessa Restrepo-Schild, a doctoral student and researcher at the Department of Chemistry, developed the synthetic retina made of water-based materials, the first of its kind.

Her study ‘Light-Patterned Current Generation in a Droplet Bilayer Array’ was published last month in the journal Scientific Reports. The retina is a composition of cells at the back of the eye.

Photoreceptors are cells which convert light into electrical signals, before they are communicated into the brain for further processing. It forms the first step in creating the picture of the scene around us is processing in the photoreceptors in the retina—effectively allowing us to see.

In degenerative retinal conditions, the photoreceptors are impaired but the rest of the eye is relatively healthy, so only the first step in the vision process is disrupted. In these cases, although light can enter the eye, it can not be transformed into images.

To simulate photoreceptors, the synthetic retina developed by Restrepo-Schild contains 16 droplets arranged in hydrogels and bacteriorhodopsin from microorganisms. When patterns of light are shown to the display, currents are generated at each biopixel, and recorded simultaneously in order to represent the original pattern of light. The system works like a camera, with cells detecting and reacting to light to create a greyscale image.

A University press release said: “The synthetic material can generate electrical signals, which might stimulate the neurons at the back of our eye just like the original retina.”

The journal article notes that this research is following 20 years of research work on bioelectrical imaging devices using bacteriorhodopsin. However, the only currently available synthetic retinas are made of hard materials such as silicon, which are much less comfortable and convenient.

The material of the implant is unique to the research. Her synthetic retina contains natural, biodegradable materials, and does not contain any foreign bodies or living entities. Therefore, it is more similar to human body tissues and is less likely to be rejected by a human body.

The new synthetic retina is a single device in which the light sensor and current generator are integrated, presumably with no need for a camera or antenna.

According to Restrepo-Schild: “The human eye is incredibly sensitive, which is why foreign bodies like metal retinal implants can be so damaging, leading to inflammation and/or scarring. But a biological synthetic implant is soft and water based, so much more friendly to the eye environment.”

Restrepo-Schild added that her motivation was not limited to just the eye, saying: “I want to take the principles behind vital bodily functions, e.g. our sense of hearing, touch and the ability to detect light, and replicated them in a laboratory environment with natural, synthetic components.”

The next step in the process is to see how this synthetic retina will perform as a bionic implant, and in the future, testing on animals and then humans, to one day improve the lives of those who can not see.

Universities warned over Brexit brain drain

Henry Straughan
-
0
Universities warned over Brexit brain drain

The UK’s top universities are especially vulnerable to a potential exodus of European scholars in response to the UK’s exit from the European Union, new figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) suggest.

The research shows that 21 of the Russell Group’s 24 universities have a proportion of EU academics higher than the UK average. Moreover, EU nationals make up over a quarter of the academic staff at eight universities: including 26 per cent at Oxford and 27 per cent at Cambridge.

Uncertainty over the working rights of EU staff and their dependents after Brexit has led to concerns that European academics may exit the UK in large numbers.

In a recent report, the Commons Education Select Committee expressed fears that a Brexit “brain drain” would threaten the international competitiveness and long-term success of UK universities. The committee also called on the government to guarantee the rights of European university staff after Brexit.

The HESA research comes just weeks after a YouGov survey revealed that 76 per cent of European academics in the UK said they were more likely to consider leaving UK higher education as a result of Brexit. It was reported in the same survey that 90 per cent of UK academics believe Brexit will have a negative impact on the UK higher education sector.

The Russell Group, it is predicted, would be particularly susceptible to such an exodus. The Group has emphasised the benefits to British universities of the free movement of academics within the EU to the UK and has stressed the value of universities being able to recruit staff from the EU without having to negotiate the UK visa system.

The University of Birmingham, a member of the Group, recently warned that European universities are using Brexit as an opportunity to poach academics from the UK. Analysis from Times Higher Education shows there were around 1700 EU academic staff working at Oxford in 2015-16, up from the 1400 in 2012-15, with only University College London having a larger number of EU academic staff.

Speaking exclusively to Cherwell, Alastair Buchan, the University’s head of Brexit strategy, said: “Oxford’s non-UK EU staff members make an enormous contribution to the teaching, research and administrative activities of the University, and the continued uncertainty over their status and entitlement to remain in the UK is a significant factor for both them and the University.

“It would be no surprise, given the uncertainty about the future, if our EU colleagues were to be thinking about moving elsewhere within Europe. So—just as many others are doing—we would urge the government to settle this matter as quickly as possible.”

Fears over a Brexit exodus follow concerns that uncertainty and anxiety over the UK’s exit from the EU are preventing international students applying to UK universities.

It was recently reported that despite widespread opposition in the UK to general immigration remaining at its current rate, 58 per cent of Britons oppose a reduction in student immigration.

First-year English student Jorge López Llorente, who comes from Spain, suggested that Brexit “will impede lots of [international students] from applying” to Oxford, warning that Brexit is reinforcing perceptions of the British as nationalist and arrogant.

Llorente further noted that concerns over potential changes to the structure of fees and loans for international students are discouraging European applications, saying of a friend that he “may not be able to come to Oxford despite getting an offer because of the money”.

He added that mere rumours and misconceptions over Brexit are enough to deter international applications.

General Election will be battle of “life and death”, says Sanders

Maxim Parr-Reid
-
0
General Election will be battle of “life and death”, says Sanders

Larry Sanders, brother of US Senator and former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Bernie Sanders, has warned of a battle of “life and death” in the General Election, after the announcement that he will run as the Green Party candidate in Oxford East.

Oxford East, the constituency covering most of Oxford University’s colleges, has been held by Labour MP Andrew Smith since 1987. Smith recently announced that he will not be standing for re-election in June.

Sanders, a former councillor who has lived in Oxford for 47 years, said of the constituency: “Oxford East is one of the areas that understand[s] and hate[s] the growth of anti-minority politics, the rise of the Trumps, and the success of the Theresa Mays in making life harder for most of us.”

Speaking of his brother’s campaign for the presidency last year, Sanders said: “I am proud that my brother has become the most popular politician in America and a powerful opponent of Trump. A government has to work for all its people, not just the very rich. I have tried to do the same.

“We are in a battle that is literally life and death, and will not end with the election. “Britain is the most unequal country in Europe. Our politics has to change.”

The news that Sanders will run comes just days after the Green Party announced that they will not be putting up a candidate for election in Oxford West & Abingdon in June.

In 2015, the party received just under 2,500 votes. Cheryl Briggs, who had planned to stand as the Green candidate, said she would not do so in order “to put the greater good” before Green Party interests.

She also said Liberal Democrat Layla Moran offered “the best chance of beating the Conservatives”. Oxford West & Abingdon is a Conservative-held seat, having been taken from the Liberal Democrats in 2010 with a majority of 176 votes.

This was increased to 9,000 votes in 2015. The seat is estimated to have voted over 60% in favour of Remain in the European Union referendum and voted majoritively for the Liberal Democrats in the recent local elections.

Matthew Hull, President of Oxford Green Students, told Cherwell: “Local Greens decided that the constituency’s best interests were served by endorsing Layla Moran. Importantly, Layla herself promised to support policies crucial to the Green ethos: supporting electoral reform, opposing fracking, and opposing further privatisation of public services. I wholeheartedly support her candidacy in Oxford West & Abingdon.”

Joe Crossley, Senior Co-chair of Oxford University Liberal Democrats, told Cherwell: “Only Lib Dem candidate Layla Moran can beat the Tories in Oxford West, and, with so many people voting tactically to stop a Tory hard Brexit, the Greens’ decision to step down is very welcome.”

The Liberal Democrat candidate for the seat, who also stood in 2015, said: “I welcome the decision the local Green Party has taken to not stand a candidate in this election. We must put a stop to the Conservatives’ damaging hard Brexit and regressive cuts […] and I am more convinced than ever that with an alliance of voters from across the political spectrum, from the Greens to Labour and the moderate Conservatives, we can and will send a powerful message to Theresa May on June 8th and win this seat back.”

Oxford student dies in tragic bus accident

Jordan Bernstein
-
0
Oxford student dies in tragic bus accident

Claudia Comberti, a 31-year-old doctoral student at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, was killed after colliding with a bus on Botley Road on Tuesday.

Detective Sergeant Gavin Collier said: “it is believed that the cyclist sadly fell from her bicycle just prior to the collision. Investigations remain ongoing to establish the cause of the incident, however we do not believe it was as a result of any interaction with another person or vehicle.”

Emotional tributes to Comberti poured in on Wednesday, as a group of more than 100 cyclists rode from Carfax Tower to Seacourt Park and Ride. They were wheeling an empty white bicycle, which together with flowers was placed at the site of the crash.

Sam Chapel, a friend of Comberti’s, said: “There were so many friends that wanted to do something, we thought that was the right thing to do.There were huge crowds. When I looked around at one point I thought it looked like a mini festival. It must have been quite a spectacle.”

Before beginning her DPhil, Camberton had previously worked as a Forests and Wellbeing Researcher at the Global Canopy Programme.

According to the Oxford School of Geography and the Environment, Comberti’s research focused on the “adaptation to climate change in Amazonian Indigenous communities, and the role of human ecosystem interactions and biocultural diversity in supporting resilience and positive responses to environmental change.”

Speaking about her loss, Comberti’s partner, Lucille, said she was a “lovely person” who “still had so much life.

“She knew what she wanted and she was really playful at the same time. She was really restless but she loved being here in Oxford even though her home was in the jungle.”

Phil Southall, managing director of the Oxford Bus Company, said that pursuant to the crash, the bus driver in question was being treated for shock. He further said that it was “far too early to speculate” regarding the cause of the crash. Southall said his company was also helping Thames Valley Police with their investigations.

Police are still appealing for witnesses of the collision, estimated to have taken place at 2.45pm on Tuesday 11 May.

Oxford Bus Comapny has been contacted for comment. The University did not wish to make a statement.

“Rapid deterioration” of finances in Oxford University Hospitals

Theo Davies-Lewis
-
0
“Rapid deterioration” of finances in Oxford University Hospitals

Oxfordshire’s hospital bosses have warned employees that there will be a “rapid deterioration” of finances after Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (OUH) revealed it had overspent by £24m from 2016/17.

A statement from the Hospitals’ Chief Executive Bruno Holthof, Chief Executive to the trust’s 12,000 staff, said that “immediate and significant” change was needed, and that there were actions in place to “control both staff pay and non-pay expenditure”.

Since he released the statement, Dr Holthof has confirmed the measures would not affect current employees, but agency staff.

A report into the trust’s financial performance, which includes the John Radcliffe, the Churchill, the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and the Horton General Hospital in Banbury, found that it had overspent on staff pay by £5.5 million and £19 million on non-pay-items such as medical supplies and stationery.

The report also listed a number of reasons for the overspend, including a savings shortfall of £13.6 million, increased expenditure to reduce the number of delayed transfers of care patients, and a rise in urgent patient referrals in the winter.

While the trust has promised to impose stricter controls on expenditure and focus more efforts to employ more staff on its payroll, a health watchdog announced plans to keep a close eye on the new measures.

Dr Holthof told The Oxford Times: “The trust is strengthening cost controls in the organisation in order to redirect the spending on delivering patient care.

“These measures do not affect the staff employed by the trust but will affect agency staff. We will accelerate the recruitment of medical and nursing staff on our payroll in order to reduce our monthly expenditure on agency staff.”

Non-pay expenditure should have been at £357.6 million but increased to £375.2 million throughout the year.

Rosalind Pearce, Executive Director of Healthwatch Oxfordshire, said: “This is a significant overspend, and we recognise that the management of Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is going to have to make some difficult decisions in order to address it.”

Chairwoman of Patient Voice Jacquie Pearce-Gervis said: “This is obviously very disappointing news. Patient Voice hopes that the control measures being put in place will not affect patient care in any way.”

1...862863864...2,496Page 863 of 2,496

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 James Ashley