Oxford City Council has approved a £39 million project to redevelop the University Sports Complex at Iffley Road.

Under the plans, the existing sports hall and all ancillary buildings will be demolished to make way for a new sports centre, grandstand and Eton fives courts.

At present, there are around 2000 student members of the Iffley Road gym, with 13 colleges subsidising membership for their students.

Sports Federation Executive Committee member Helen Hanstock said that there is a “dramatic need” to expand the complex to meet the demand from the University sports clubs.

Sophie Winwood, a Womens’ Rugby Blue athlete, also welcomed the new plans, calling the old facilities “out of date.”

Iffley Road Sports Complex was built in 1966, when there were fewer than 10 university sports teams, compared with the current 84.

The Protestor – Sam Briggs

When we arrived at Millbank, there was a real carnival atmosphere. Everyone was dancing, and it felt like a party. As we approached the Tory headquarters, I saw NUS marshals telling people to turn back, as there were too many people, and it wasn’t on the route. But others were shouting. “Don’t do what the marshals tell you, this is your event, your protest.” When we got there some of the windows were already cracked, and there was a line of policemen in front of one of them, although they weren’t using their batons. People threw things at the windows, and one group smashed through while the police were occupied by some other protestors.

When the whole window pane came out the crowd surged and we all piled inside. It was carnage. Police were guarding the window but we were already inside the bulding. Inside there were so many people, although it sometimes felt like there were more journalists than students. It was about half an hour before any police came inside the building, and when they did, most just stood against a back wall, watching. The atmosphere was still great, people were dancing, and some were on the roof, shooting foam out of fire extinguishers onto the crowd below. Then they threw the fire extinguisher itself, and the atmosphere quickly changed. The entire crowd turned against them, and chanted for them to stop. Everyone was unanimous it they should not have thrown that, including the majority of people who stormed the building.

It’s a shame that some people seem to have gone there planning to start violent trouble, although personally I am quite pro-ransacking. A lot of people say that even if we won the battle it will lose us the war. But it was a reflection of frustration against politicians that we voted for, who are now lying going back on their word. I was completely against the violence, and I totally sympathise with the police for doing their job. But the ransacking was different. It will cost a bit to replace the windows but will cost my brother a lot more to go to uni.

The Employee – Ben Lindsay

I work for an events company called Altitude, which has offices on several floors of Millbank. We could see protestors marching from about 11am, but it didn’t get busy until lunchtime. At the time, we were serving food for a media company launch in our media centre on the ground floor. At about 1.45pm, a fire alarm went off, and we were told to evacuate the building. Already the scene was quite chaotic. Students had entered the main courtyard, brandishing placards and chanting – but their aim was to get inside. About 15 to 20 people tried to push through a police line, and whenever one succeeded, there were cheers. Half an hour later, they had set fire to a banner – this was met with even more cheering. A few hours later the glass had been shattered. Things seemed to be escalating step by step, but no one was stopping the students doing anything.

By this point we were back inside the building, working in the kitchens, but keeping an eye on the unfolding situation. It was at about 3.30pm when one chef told us that they had taken out the windows and were occupying the lobby. Once they were in the lobby, they had access to the stairs and could occupy the whole building. One guy in a bandana came into the kitchen and asked how he could get upstairs, but when the chefs turned round he ran away – he must have got scared as a lot of pretty big guys were just staring at him. Some other students started kicking in our windows, but only when our executive chef tried to confront them did the police intervene. Then the other chefs and I ran out. To be honest, I was just quite surprised about how underpoliced it seemed to be. We chatted to a policeman and asked why they weren’t doing more to intervene. He replied that since the G8 protests, they had been instructed not to use force. They were also undermanned, so probably couldn’t have stopped it if they wanted to.

I also talked to the students. It seemed as though they were pushing their luck, trying to see how far they could go. There was music and dancing inside the lobby – it looked like a big party. I didn’t see anyone get arrested. At one point I looked out, and there seemed to be hundreds of students to a couple of policemen.

At about 4.30pm the whole building was evacuated. We were onto dessert so the event was pretty much over. At first the police were in control, but when the lobby windows went, there was no real way to control what was happening.

Hundreds of Oxford students were among the thousands who took to the streets of London on Wednesday to protest against government plans to triple tuition fees and slash public spending on higher education.

Over 50,000 protesters marched from Trafalgar Square towards the Houses of Parliament. The NUS organised event was the biggest student demonstration in a decade, since the introduction of tuition fees in 1998. It was also the biggest national demonstration so far against the coalition government’s programme of spending cuts.

Though the march itself was peaceful, violence erupted when students stormed the Conservative headquarters.
Ralph Turner, a second year Somerville undergraduate said, “The violence was certainly not predictable. Although a sense of anger was easily detectable, the general mood of the crowd was light-hearted, with the vast majority wanting to make their point in a peaceful way.”

During the course of the afternoon, students smashed windows and broke into the Tory offices in the Millbank Tower. Once inside the lobby, the protesters slashed furniture and spray painted “Tory pigs” on the walls, before running upstairs and occupying the roof. Throngs of protesters below cheered and applauded as a red flag was flown by the students on the roof.

One of the students who occupied the roof told Cherwell, “There was lots of energy in the crowd, and we managed to fight our way into the building. We ran upstairs onto the roof; it felt really empowering, just showing how angry we were. Later, we ran down the fire escape and escaped through a back door, before disappearing back into the crowd.”

Onlookers told how the positive atmosphere soon dissipated as a fire extinguisher was thrown from the roof, aimed at the line of police in the courtyard. At this point, the crowd started chanting at them to “stop throwing shit”.

A first year engineering student at Oxford said, “Suddenly everyone in the court yard turned against the students on the roof and told them to stop.”

One of the protesters on the roof defended their actions, saying, “Entering and occupying the building is justifiable. We need to do more than just marching if we want to make an impact. Smashing windows to get access to building is also justifiable, although I would never condone physical violence against anyone, including a police officer.”

OUSU President, David Barclay, commented, “OUSU supports the right of students to protest nonviolently. It is hugely unfortunate that some people yesterday were injured and that arrests were made.”

Aaron Porter, President of the National Union of Students, was also quick to condemn the violence. In a statement he said, “This action was by others who have come out and used this opportunity to hijack a peaceful protest.”

However, not everyone agreed with Porter’s line on the events at the Millbank Tower. Michael Walker, a second year PPE student at Oxford said, “There was a palpable feeling it was not enough to simply tell the government we opposed their plans. We needed to demonstrate not only our anger but our capability to channel that anger into a force which could genuinely challenge the government’s ability to implement its cuts agenda.”

Walker disputed the claim that the actions of students at the Millbank Tower were violent. “It is a falsity to construe the actions against Conservative HQ as violent. Protesters were not attacking people. Protesters were attacking a building. Spraying walls within which the destruction of their own communities were being planned.”

A few hours before the storming of the Conservative headquarters, there was another largely unreported disturbance at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Courtney Yousef, a first year History student at Catz, explained what happened. “Led on by a sound system blasting out old-school Garage anthems, a few hundred students broke away from the main march to roam the streets of Westminster.

“We ran past Downing Street and danced past Horse Guards, then the sound system led the crowd to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.”

Here, students jumped over the wall and stormed the courtyard, as the police formed a barrier to stop prevent anyone from entering the main building.

Yousef said, “A few were using the crowd to attempt a pre-planned siege of the building, the majority of the people were simply dancing to the music and having a great time.

“That is what the media has failed to convey in its portrayal of the protest. Dancing in the street, united by a cause, irrespective of your background and circumstances, that’s what Wednesday was really about.”

A spokesperson from the Metropolitan police confirmed to Cherwell that 50 people had been arrested who were linked to the demonstration. Cherwell understands that at least one Oxford student was among those who were arrested at the protests.
The Met Police spokesperson said, “Everyone who was arrested has been released on bail until February, pending further investigation. We are looking to establish who was involved; it is too early to comment on identities.

“There is going to be an internal review of what happened on Wednesday to ensure that any lessons that need to be learned can be incorporated into the planning of future events.”
A spokesperson from the University Press Office said, “We are committed to free speech and supports people’s right to protest. The majority of Oxford students will have acted peacefully. We do not condone any sort of violence or illegal activity.”

Cherwell has this week found that Oxford RAG raises 90% less money than some other university RAGs. Cherwell has also uncovered significant differences in the amount of moneyraised for RAG by individual colleges.

RAG, which stands for Raise And Give, is overseen by OUSU. It describes itself as Oxford’s central charities committee, and is part of a national network of university RAG organisations. In 2009-10, Oxford RAG donated just under £70,000 to charity, but both Loughborough and Nottingham raised over £1 million, while Cambridge raised more than double Oxford’s total.

Nottingham University’s equivalent, Karnival, raised almost £1.25 million – £50,000 of which came from a single club night attracting over 6,500 students. Joe Spraggins, Karnival Treasurer, told Cherwell, “I think one of the main reasons we’re so successful is that we appeal to a wide audience, so that at some point throughout people’s time at Nottingham they will get involved in Karnival in one way or another.” Even outside of term time Nottingham students continue fundraising. £500,000 was earned over the summer vacation alone, with trips including climbing Kilimanjaro and trekking the Great Wall of China.

Of Oxford RAG’s £70,000 total for 2009-10, only £38,000 was raised by RAG-organised events. College-organised events, which received assistance from RAG, raised the remaining £32,000, which was donated to charities nominated by JCRs and JCR Charity Reps.

The cost-effectiveness of RAG fundraising events has also been questioned: Kieran Cunningham, candidate for the OUSU position of Charities & Committee Vice President stated on the night of his hustings, “people do not have confidence in Oxford RAG.”
He told the room, “When I was raising money on the street for my friends to bungee jump, people asked me how much of this money is going towards the crane and insurance and how much is actually going towards charity? I felt uncomfortable answering them.”

Cunningham pledged that if elected he would “look at the books and make changes if necessary.”

Students have also expressed concern that RAG fails to make clear what the money donated will be used for. Harry Maltby, a JCR Charities Rep, says “I think RAG is at risk of losing sight of the fact that they are fundraising for very specific charities. In the plethora of emails, nowhere have I seen the charities mentioned – they’d do well to remind us that are not just raising money for the sake of it.” And Will Wright, a second year historian, commented that ‘this magic word ‘charity’ is used to guilt-trip people into buying tickets, and I find this happens a lot, both with events organised within the JCR and by RAG. Most of the time, no one actually knows what they are fundraising for.”

But Oxford RAG Vice President and Treasurer, Charlotte Flowers, defended RAG’s fundraising efforts. She said, “We make sure all our expenditure is the minimum that it can be to maximise our fundraising capability, and we hope that we too can critically look at our accounts and ensure that this continues.” Flowers also pointed out Oxford RAG’s recent growth. Having made a total of £26,000 in 2009 they have made £25,000 this term already.
The current VP Charities and Community, Daniel Lowe, argued that ‘If an event turns a profit, that can only be a good thing. Turning five pounds into six and giving that pound to charity is a success, however small. Charitable events can serve two functions, either purely to raise profit, or to raise awareness of the cause thereby encouraging later participation.”

It should also be remembered that the collegiate system means that much of the money raised by Oxford students is not included in the RAG total, whilst the vast majority of fundraising at universities such as Nottingham and Loughborough is associated with their RAG groups.

And Immanuel Kemp, Cambridge RAG treasurer, is confident that Oxford RAG will grow quickly. He said, “Essentially it’s about something having managed to develop over time which is now self-sustaining. I’m sure that within a few years Oxford RAG should have no difficulty in raising on a par with or exceeding our own total from last year.” Charlotte Flowers is also optimistic that Oxford can make RAG an integral part of student life through “a culmination of more awareness and bigger events both university wide and within colleges.” At this week’s OUSU husts, one audience member praised RAG’s efforts, asking, “When OxHub and RAG do the job better, why do we even need a VP for Charities?”

Cherwell also uncovered substantial differences in the amount of money each College raised for RAG.

Regent’s Park raised more than £7000, despite having no charity levy in students’ battels. At other colleges these levies, which are usually charged automatically but can be opted out of, range from £6 to £35 per year. Regent’s JCR held a football tournament in memory of Antonia Bruch, a fresher who died suddenly of meningitis last year, raising £5000 in a single day. James Fox, JCR president admitted, “Considering we only have 100 undergraduates in total, we do tend to punch above our weight in terms of charity events and fundraising.”

St. Edmund’s Hall raised just £26.99 in RAG-affiliated events, although many fundraising events at Teddy Hall and other colleges are not associated with RAG and donate the money raised to charities selected by the JCR. Elizabeth Bell, Charity Rep at Worcester College, told Cherwell of successful Eating Contests, Blind Date Evenings and Slave Auctions. Bell explained the popularity of these college-based fundraising events, saying, “since they are in college they need minimal effort to attend and there are students around so people can go with friends.”
Not all charitable activity in Oxford involves raising money.

Habiba Islam, Somerville’s JCR Charity Representative, noted that there was an “emphasis on different aspects of charity, not just fundraising but also campaigning and volunteering,”at her College. Wadham and Hertford run Kid’s Adventure, a joint volunteering project, and Magdalen has its own Young Carers Project, where students volunteer with young children who care for a family member. Antonia Adebambo, Secretary of the Magdalen Young Carers Project, said ‘the success of this project can obviously not be measured in terms of money raised. Instead, this allows students to make a positive impact on the community and this is something that you really cannot put a price on.’

OxHub President Hannah MacDiarmid commented, “Volunteering is becoming increasingly popular in Oxford as it’s a great way to get students engaged with their community and making a positive difference locally.

“We have projects working on a variety of issues including with the homeless, in schools, with young refugees and on conservation and food waste issues.”

As thousands of students marched on the streets of Westminster, heated exchanges about hiked tuition fees and education cuts were also taking place within the House of Commons.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, Nick Clegg’s U-turn in his policy on tuition fees came under fire from Harriet Harman.

The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party was met with applause and laughter when she said, “During the election [Mr Clegg] promised to abolish tuition fees. Can he update the House on how it’s going?”

When Mr Clegg told Ms Harman that there was a “consensus” across the parties about the need to reform university funding, Ms Harman hit back, saying, “None of us agree with tuition fees of £9,000 a year.”

She suggested Mr Clegg had been “led astray” by the Conservatives, who had plans “to shove the cost of higher education on to students and their families”.

But Mr Clegg said the government had come up with a “fair and progressive solution to a very difficult problem”. He said the Lib Dems had to change policy because of the financial situation and compromises made in the coalition agreement.

Mr Clegg added, “This is an extraordinarily difficult issue and I have been entirely open about the fact that we have not been able to deliver the policy that we held in opposition.”

The Lib Dems had made a pledge before the general election that they would not raise tuition fees and would fight all attempts to increase them. However, since entering government as the coalition partner of the Conservative party, leading members of the Lib Dems now support the proposed fee rises.

Much of the student anger at the London demonstration was directed towards Nick Clegg. As well as storming the Conservative headquarters, hundreds of students swarmed outside the Lib Dem offices.

Crowds gathered around a large fire, as students sung “Build a bonfire, build a bonfire, put the Tories on the top; Put the Lib Dems in the middle, and we’ll burn the f***ing lot”. Throughout the London protests students chanted, “Nick Clegg shame on you, shame on you for turning blue.”

Many protesters expressed their frustration and disillusionment with the democratic process after the Lib Dems’ policy changes regarding higher education.

Kate Halls, a fourth year Arabic and Hebrew student at Wadham, said, “We know that politely filing past Parliament to ask for favours will get us nowhere: the only way to achieve change is to make for the locus of power and start taking it apart. Only thus will we convince the hypocrites and thieves running our country that we are a force to be reckoned with.”

Patrick Fleming, a second year Oxford PPEist, said, “The claim that yesterday’s protest was spoilt by the scenes at Millbank is premised upon a naive trust in the workings of democracy. There is no channel for genuine debate of ideas, no prospect for government to listen its electorate, and crucially, no accountability between (or even at) elections.

“The violence was a rational expression of rage from citizens who have been tricked, ignored and sidelined time and again. There is no other channel which grants us the opportunity to express the extent of our frustration and alienation. We had to fight, and so we fought.”

A series of fines amounting to over £2000 issued by St Hugh’s has provoked outrage among many members of the JCR.

The fines have been collected by the college authorities for rule infringements this term involving smoking indoors, bringing guests into college, theft, having vomit in a bin, and vandalism of college property.
In Freshers’ Week, two first year students were fined £150 each and banned from the college bar for a term for urinating in a bush.

Later in the week, the college imposed further punishment after finding out that police had issued a caution to the same two students for what was described by one St Hugh’s fresher, who wished to remain anonymous, as “horsing around with some bikes in town.”

The offenders were issued with a further £300 fine, a year-long ban from the college bar and the threat of immediate rustication for any future offence.

The eventual punishment came after over two and a half weeks of meetings. The issue was referred from the Dean to the Disciplinary Committee and finally the Junior Proctor, who allegedly called the offenders “idiots” and “arseholes”, and told them that they did not deserve to be at the University.

This was one of several incidents incurring fines that were recounted to Cherwell, most of which have happened since third week. They concern largely, but not exclusively, members of the first year. Most of our sources wished to remain anonymous for fear of recriminations within St Hugh’s.

In another incident, two freshers were fined £100 each for stealing signs from Wadham, which were returned to the college within an hour.

One of the students was fined a further £100 for vandalising his staircase. This involved depositing seven slices of mouldy bread in front of a friend’s door, leaving cigarette butts lying around and creating a mess on his own door that he cleaned up the next morning.

A second year student was fined £200 for smoking in her room and playing music at 10.50pm, when neither of her neighbours were present. “I was hardly creating a ‘noise disturbance’ to other members of the college,” she told Cherwell.

There were also reports of group activities, such as conversations and watching films, being stopped by members of the decanal team.

Many within the college feel that the measures have been too strict, with one first year student saying “we feel our own independence is being infringed upon.”

One of those who have been fined told the Cherwell that he believed such punishments to be “highly disproportionate”.

He said that he resented above all the lack of “room for discussion” over the punishments. “Any response given to the dean was considered an act of rudeness.

“At times I was simply accused of things that were not the case, and
when I tried, as politely as I could, discuss this with him, I was shouted at,” he added.

Others have felt that there is a behavioural problem in St Hugh’s this year – with incidents such as windows being smashed – and that all punishments were administered in line with college rules.

“I don’t feel any of the fines have been arbitrarily dished out and all have been perfectly justified,” said one third-year student.

“Those first years that have committed serial offences need to get a life and realise that all this does is give their year a bad reputation.”

An email titled “Advice from the Dean” sent to all members of the JCR by First-Year Rep Tom Meacher warned, among other things, of the implications of breaking the law by smoking indoors.

“I must warn you that the dean takes this extremely seriously,” Meacher wrote, “as, if a member of the college staff complains (for example a scout who cleans your room) through their trade union, the college would not have a leg to stand on in court and would be liable for a fine in the tens of thousands of pounds.”

Sebastian Stain, one of the Junior Deans, told Cherwell that the college regulations have not changed since last year and that he felt that the increase in decanal activity was due to “the behaviour of some people in the first year.”

“The measures are completely appropriate,” he said. “Everything is in line with the college and university regulations.”

The “dramatic increase in decanal activity” was raised in a JCR meeting on 7 November by second-year students Annie MacIver and Shanna Martens. In their proposal they expressed concern that the punishments were having “an entirely adverse effect” and had “increased hostility to the decanal team”.

The motion noted that the decanal team does “a valuable and essential job,” but also declared that “students have the capacity and maturity to be aware of each other.”

It continued, “we believe it is unnecessary to discipline students for activities that can be shown to not inconvenience others, for example listening to music or watching TV late at night, having ensured that neighbouring students are not working or sleeping.”

The motion advocated writing a letter to the Dean “detailing [the JCR’s] concern” and asking for a reconsideration of the “current approach, perhaps returning to a similar attitude as last year that worked well.”
The proposal passed, with a friendly amendment allowing all members of the JCR to see the letter before it was sent.

If the letter did not produce the desired response, and “fines and repression continue,” the motion said that the JCR will consider other solutions, such as asking OUSU to “investigate perceived abuse of the disciplinary system.”

When contacted by Cherwell, the Dean refused to comment.

Christ Church JCR held an Emergency General Meeting last Sunday and passed a motion mandating its officers to support the Government’s proposals to raise tuition fees.

The finalised motion, proposed by Christ Church OUSU representative Sébastien Fivaz, expressed the JCR’s belief that except for the “extensive cuts”, the Government’s proposals provide a “sustainable future” for higher education.

Second year student Adrian Hogan said the Emergency Meeting took place because “our OUSU rep thought that it was important for our JCR to have a position.”

Fivaz, who is running for NUS delegate in this year’s OUSU elections, proposed that the Christ Church JCR defined its position “because OUSU assume ours currently.”

He continued, “Our views are slightly more nuanced than OUSU’s. We need to take a stance.”

Passed by 21 votes to 14, the motion followed a debate, where some students argued that the JCR should not take a position on such a contentious issue.

One student, James Ingoldby said, “The JCR should not play the role of government.”

It has also been suggested that a JCR position voted on by less than 10 per cent of undergraduates at Christ Church is inconclusive.

Stuart Cullen, former Union President, felt that “the JCR is very divided on the matter.”

He said, “Surely it is unfair to give the JCR representative a mandate to take a specific position on [tuition fees] when this does not reflect the JCR’s views.”

However JCR President Mike Barrett argued that “just because we cannot get a unanimous decision does not mean that this motion should be rejected…these are the processes in place to make the students’ voices heard.”

The motion’s suggestion to support an increase in tuition fees was met with opposition from many of those present.

One student, Thomas Peter Hire, argued that higher fees would mean that “Oxford and Cambridge will charge more than elsewhere, which will surely impact on who applies there.

“If universities can charge such high figures then students from poorer backgrounds would be discouraged from coming to Oxbridge.

“Oxbridge would become more of a ghetto for people with money than it already is.”

The JCR’s decision also risks putting Christ Church at odds with OUSU, who have expressed their opposition to the Browne Review.

OUSU have labelled the Browne Review a “blueprint for elitism” and President David Barclay called the decision to raise fees “a slap in the face to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

However OUSU has not commented on the Government’s proposals to raise fees as distinct from those outlined in the Browne Review, leading a Christ Church JCR committee member to point out that “the two policies are entirely reconcilable.”

Fivaz agreed, “The government have come to a good compromise [on fees] with soft and hard caps of £6000 and £9000.”

The final motion stated that the JCR believes “that a sustainable future for higher education funding is provided for by the proposals made by Her Majesty’s Government except the extensive cuts to higher education teaching proposed in the Spending Review 2010.”

Rumoured plans to close the Worcester college Buttery have been met with a mixture of mild anguish and stoicism by students.

In an email to Worcester students, JCR Secretary Alexander Short sent a stark warning that the Buttery was “in severe danger of closing”, explaining that “it loses large amounts of money, and the college considers that as it stands that money could be far better used elsewhere.”

Emphasising the extremity of the situation, he warned that, “Unless there is an extreme rise in usage extremely quickly, it will no longer exist in its current form.”

He entreated students to ignore the pull of big brand names: “Instead of heading to Combibos or Starbucks, why not go the Buttery instead? A nice quiet place to read a newspaper, have a chat with friends or do some work.”

Despite the range of services supplied by the Buttery, including food, free Wi-fi, and stationary items “at very good prices,” it makes a loss of £14,000 a year, and is mainly used by students to purchase tickets for formal hall.

Julien Anani-Isaac, JCR President, threw the JCR’s collective emotional weight behind the buttery: “Both the SCR and the JCR would love to see it stay open but it really needs to be used. The SCR are even willing to accept a loss if they see that the Buttery is being used.”

Anani-Isaac continued that “unless the Buttery starts being used by students, therefore making its existence justified, closing it is the only sensible economic option”.

However, the previously apathetic student body appear to have been mobilised by the threat posed to the Buttery. A Facebook group entitled “SAVE THE BUTTERY!!!” has been set up, and within an hour had over a hundred members. One member, Rebecca Adams, wrote “If everyone buys one thing a day this week we can save the buttery! Hurray!”

However, disillusionment within the movement grew equally quickly, as it appears that not all of the members joined the group voluntarily. The same Rebecca Adams wrote on the group’s wall “Can I leave this?”, with Robert Nairne asking “What’s the Buttery?” and the group’s creator lamenting “Oh god, what have I started?” less than ten minutes after the group’s creation.

Despite the substantial amount of money lost by the Buttery each year, students seem to feel it is money well spent.

Hugo Lewis, a third-year geographer, described the £14,000 deficit as a “small effect” on the overall college budget, stating it was “worth it” – although he did admit that there were only five people in the Buttery as he spoke.

Patrick Thomson, who is currently a postgrad student at Wadham but used to be an undergraduate and JCR committee member at Worcester, defended the investment.

Although he admitted that £14,000 was “not an inconsiderable” amount of money, he recalls “brighter days when birds would sing as you sipped coffee and bought a Curly Wurly”, claiming that “the Buttery is really part of the soul of the college”.

However rumours that the Buttery’s fate is already sealed may be misguided. Although second year E&M student Lucy Gregory pessimistically mused “It’s basically already decided it’s closing”, the college has denied that any such decisions have been made.

Steve Dyer, the Domestic Bursar, said there would be “no imminent closure” and that the college was “just seeing how the numbers stack up”. However, he confirmed that college is attempting to increase the number of people who go there “with free newspapers”.

Candidates were announced this week for this year’s OUSU elections, which are due to take place between Tuesday and Thursday of next week.

There are two candidates for the position of OUSU President 2011-2012: Martha Mackenzie, currently a third year History and Politics student at St. John’s, and Tom Scott, a third year PPEist at New College.

Scott has been heavily involved in charity work in Oxford, including Aegis, Food Justice and Student Action for Refugees. Mackenzie was president of the Oxford University Labour Club last year and is the current JCR President of St John’s.

Three of the five other sabbatical positions are contested by two candidates, with only Vice-President, Women uncontested. There were no applications for the Vice-President, Graduates position.

Tom Scott and Martha Mackenzie are both running on a slate, permitted in the OUSU elections, in contrast to Union rules.

Candidates backing Scott have submitted orange manifestos to show their support whilst those supporting Mackenzie have submitted blue manifestos.

Scott’s proposed policies include increasing student interaction with the community to support the Living Wage campaign and fight rent-rises in Oxford. He also proposes better integrating OUSU with college common rooms to help create University-wide policies on matters such as discipline and welfare.

Mackenzie is advocating reform of the academic probation system and an improvement in interaction between current students and both applicants and graduates. She is also lobbying for better access schemes and for funding to be provided for unpaid internships.

Balliol student Simon Stewart is running as an independent candidate for the Vice-President, Welfare and Equal Opportunities position. His manifesto includes his telephone number, and suggests that voters should call him if they are “throwing a party and want to see some sweet dance moves”.

He told Cherwell, “My style of dancing involves pointing in the air and jumping about – although it depends how the mood takes me.”

“Dancing makes people happier and combats stress”, he added.

The presidential candidates will take part in seven husts during their nine days of campaigning, and will also canvass support around Oxford through publicity campaigns. The slates are each allowed to spend just over £200 on efforts to win support.

Last year around 16 per cent of students voted in the election.