Footage of Saturday’s protest (Daniel Rolle)

Protesters marching in favour of animal rights have broken a long-standing promise never to attack University students – after turning on a student who threw an egg at them..

A student, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was pursued, harassed and allegedly brought to the ground by demonstrators before police intervened.

The incident took place during the march by animal rights group Speak last Saturday. The student had thrown an egg at marchers, sparking the attack, and was arrested and fined £80 for his actions.

In February 2007 Mel Broughton, one of Speak’s co-founders, promised that the organisation would “never target students of the University”. The scuffle between protesters and the undergraduate was the first time this promise was broken.

Members of Wadham witnessed the tussle, which took place on Parks Road, as the march entered Broad Street.
The 20-year-old student threw an egg at the marchers before running towards Wadham and then down Holywell Street.

Nick Coxon, a first year undergraduate at the college, described how he saw “a guy who appeared to be a student being chased by three protesters, in the opposite direction to the way the marchers were going.

“He got quite a long way away before the three protesters chasing him, who were still holding their protest signs, caught up.

“There was a bit of a scuffle, which it was hard to see due to the fact that many of the protesters had realised what was happening and joined in, some running about 30 yards to be in the centre of the action.

“It was quite shocking how quickly so many of the protesters became interested in violently apprehending the guy, without seeming to have any idea for what reason they were actually chasing him.”

Helen Smith, another Wadham student, said, “We were looking out our window at the protesters, who were taking up the whole of Parks Road, and all of a sudden I was aware of a student being chased down the street.

“I wasn’t sure if he fell or if the protesters brought him down but he was on the floor and it looked like a number of the protesters were attacking him.

“It didn’t last very long because about ten policemen ran in and broke it up. It completely halted the protest for a short while though.”

Thames Valley Police confirmed, “A student was arrested on Mansfield Road after an egg was thrown at the protesters,” but had no record of the alleged violence that followed.

Reporting of the story on the website of the Oxford Mail drew comments from members of the march. One protester wrote, “It is wonderful to see this little wimp getting a nice fine. I was at the march, it was wonderful, and I saw the man do it. Guess he won’t be messing with us again!”

A second protester wrote, “They were all decent people on that march – men, women, children, even a few babies – and that missile could have quite easily struck one of them.

“Yes, there were a few protesters who were angry, and they gave chase. What would you have done if a member of your family or a friend was attacked by a missile throwing thug? Would you just stand there like a coward and let them get away with it?

“The police did protect that thug on Saturday – I just hope that he has learnt the error of his ways.’”

Oxford University recently obtained an injunction against Speak, in which the harassment of students was made legally punishable by fines or jail-time.

Section 2 of the Order, dated 25 January 2008, states that, “The Respondents shall be restrained from…assaulting, harassing, molesting, threatening or otherwise interfering with any Protected Person so as thereby to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment.”

However the same act states that such harassment isn’t punishable if it was aimed at preventing or detecting a crime.
A spokeswoman for Speak claimed that protesters only pursued the student for the purpose of restraining him.

She said, “People chased the student who threw the egg,” but added that “people chased him to apprehend him.

“All I was informed of was that someone had thrown something – we weren’t sure if it was an egg or a rock at first, and at the time it was rather alarming.” The spokeswoman, at the front of the march, was unable to comment on the details of the resulting chase behind her.

The spokeswoman added that Speak believed the march had been successful and peaceful.

She added, “We think it went very well. We had a large turnout, with lots of people passing by joining in the march.” Speak themselves had a large stewarding presence at the event.

Speak first moved to Oxford in order to prevent the completion of the new University animal testing laboratory on South Parks Road. The group’s aims have subsequently expanded to include trying to stop all animal testing at the University.

The group holds regular protests around Oxford, with this particular march organised in observance of the “World Day for Animals in Laboratories.” More than 400 people attended the march, which went from Oxpens Road through Oxford to South Parks Road.

A trashing victim pleads his case

Proctors have fined Oxford students over £10,000 for exam ‘trashings’, more than five times last year’s figure – largely through the use of Facebook evidence.

OUSU President Martin McCluskey has demanded an end to the use of social networking sites such as Facebook in disciplinary matters, and has called for a fairer and more transparent fining process.

Between Trinity Term 2007 and Hilary Term 2008, the Proctors collected over £11,065 in fines, compared to £1670 and £2385 in the last two years. Over £10,000 came from offences linked to trashing, where prosecutions relied upon evidence taken from sifting through Facebook posts and photos.

Such ‘trashings’ are a relatively recent Oxford tradition and involve graduating students spraying each other with champagne, flour, eggs, confetti, shaving foam, ‘silly string’ and other substances. In recent years there have been some reports of students hurling squid and cat-food. In 2004, following complaints by residents, the University resorted to spot-fines of up to £70, but only fourteen students were caught.

This year, using photos posted on Facebook as evidence, fifty-six fines were given out for “engaging in activities likely to cause injury or impair safety and/or disorderly behaviour”, compared to none the previous year. These ranged from £40 to £500, with the great majority of fines £150 or less.

Four students were fined without even committing physical acts. They were fined for “inciting or conspiring to engage in prohibited activities”, with three students fined £40 and one £80 for the crime of “posting messages which could be interpreted by others as encouragement to breach the regulations.”

Outgoing Senior Proctor James Forder revealed the increase in fines at his Oration to University Congregation on 12 March, and was open about the use of Facebook postings to identify culprits and dismissive of subsequent student outrage.

Forder, an Economics tutor at Balliol College, said, “there is one clear sign that we took the right line over misbehaviour after examinations: everyone was furious with us.”

“OUSU expressed a fury. What could be more innocent than celebrating the end of the best undergraduate education in the world than by destroying the environment in which it was enjoyed? What could be more reprehensible than looking at a Web site to crack down on it?”

“We were asked these questions by student representatives, in slightly differing words, at almost every meeting with them during the year. Indeed, it even knocked OUSU’s requests for more money and more representation on University committees into second place in their representations to us.”

OUSU President McCluskey’s initial response over the past week was to call attention to the issue with the creation of a Facebook group named ‘Judge, Jury and Executioner: Proctors Take £10,000’, with over 240 members having joined so far.

Following on from this, there will now be a motion on the issue in the OUSU Council on Friday, demanding action from the Proctors.

OUSU are calling for “the publication of a schedule of fines to ensure that people know the fines they face for various offences,” as well as “an end to the use of Facebook and other Social Networking Sites” in pursuing disciplinary cases, and “the introduction of a more fair and transparent system, suitable for a modern University.”

At the Council, petitions will also be handed out to collect signatures for these demands ahead of a meeting OUSU have scheduled with the Proctors on Thursday of 2nd Week.

McCluskey says that the aim is “not to try and justify trashing – not to try and justify people throwing things at their friends – but to tie down a proper system of fining. There is no explanation of what constitutes a £40 fine and what constitutes a £500 fine.”

“I want to move the debate away from just trashing. What happened last year points to major problems in the system that allow one group of Proctors to pursue a certain agenda, in spite of precedent and the expectations of students based on previous sets of Proctors,” McCluskey continued.

“I agree that things got out of hand last year and that the impact on the local community was detrimental. However, the way to stop it is not to progressively become more punitive. This issue has come up at nearly every Proctor’s meeting with OUSU since 1992 and things haven’t improved.”

“If we’re ever going to see any real change, it’s only going to be by entering into a constructive dialogue with everyone involved and I’m glad that the new Proctors have been more open to listening and engaging with students over this issue and others,” he concluded.

Council bills for clearing up after ‘trashings’ can run into thousands of pounds, but the University fines are not used to pay for this. Instead, an Oxford University Press Office spokeswoman said that “the yearly funds from fines go to a good cause within the University.”

This year, the fines were split equally between the Bodleian Library Redevelopment Fund and the Friends of the Pitt Rivers Museum.

Students have reacted angrily to the decision of a handful of colleges to enforce a University ban on the BBC’s iPlayer and Channel 4’s 4 On Demand services.

The programs, which allow users to watch television programmes on the internet after they have been broadcast, use ‘peer-to-peer’ technology and so are banned by Oxford University Computer Services (OUCS).

However, colleges have been inconsistent in enforcing the rules, leading to double-standards which have angered some students.

OUCS says ‘peer-to-peer’ file sharing uses up large amounts of bandwidth meaning that the internet becomes slower for other users, and that the technology could allow the illegal distribution of software, music and videos.
Several colleges have clamped down on students using the services, fearing that they might overwhelm their networks.

Paul Martin, Computer Officer at Wadham, said, “Peer-to-peer file-sharing technology, including BBC iPlayer and 4oD, are against the University’s ICT rules. Wadham, like any other college, connects through the University network and follows those rules.”

Somerville College is currently the only college with a web-filter that blocks students from accessing the iPlayer and 4oD sites. Somerville’s IT  Manager commented, “The college has a 100Mb connection to the University backbone. ‘Peer-to-peer’ applications will use as much bandwidth as they can get. We try to keep all our students updated and informed about the limitations of internet use within the network.”

Students at Somerville College have even been warned about having the programs installed on personal computers because they continue to run data transfers when not in use.

An email to undergraduates and graduates read, “It looks like a few people who have been downloading music and videos using ‘peer-to-peer’ programs over the vacation have forgotten to uninstall them on return to college […] If you do still have any of this software on your computer then you should take action such as uninstalling it right away.”

The blanket rule against ‘peer-to-peer’ programs was put in place by the University proctors over five years ago. IT Manager of Jesus College, John Ireland, warns that action may be taken against students who breach the rule, “The use of ‘peer-to-peer’ software can be detected and traced back to an individual who has accepted responsibility for the computer that the software is running on.”

“This does constitute a breach of the Proctors’ ruling and, depending on the college/department/details of the case, action could well be taken through standard disciplinary proceedings,” Ireland continued.

However, some college authorities have not enforced the University’s regulations.

One second year at Christ Church said, “It’s just really convenient to use iPlayer on such a fast internet connection and not being stopped from using it makes us feel really happy with the college. I use it at least a few times a week and don’t think twice about it.”

Another student, a Wadham historian, said, “lots of people use iPlayer at college. We’re all too busy to watch TV at set times each week so it’s nice to be able to relax and watch our favourite programmes when it suits.”

The success of BBC iPlayer has already drawn national media attention for putting severe strain on the internet and threatening to bring the national network to a crunch point.

On 9 April, it was reported that there had been a clash between Internet Service Providers and the BBC, due to the increased load that TV-on-demand sites are placing on network providers. An hour of iPlayer video downloaded at peak times would cost them on average 67 pence, and many internet providers are unwilling to absorb these costs.
 
Both the BBC iPlayer and 4oD applications use technology where users download files from one another, rather than from a central server.

 Union President Ben Tansey{multithumb}
 
Oxford Union President Ben Tansey has withdrawn the Union’s invitation to disgraced television actor Chris Langham, claiming that he doesn’t want “needless controversy.”

Tansey had previously defended the decision to invite Langham after coming under criticism from the child protection charity Kidscape.

Langham had been invited to speak at Frewin Court on 29 May to discuss his ‘vilification’ in the media. The BAFTA-winning comedy actor is best known for his performance in BBC Four comedy “The Thick of It”. He was jailed for ten months at Maidstone Crown Court last September after being convicted of 15 counts of downloading images of children, some of whom were as young as eight.

He spent three months in prison but was released on appeal in November.

Tansey said that he had “literally spoken to hundreds of people to gauge their thoughts on Chris Langham speaking at the Union,” and that the issue had been “considered seriously”.

He added, “we’ve put together a great termcard, the committee has worked very hard to make it an exciting term and we do not want any needless controversy. We do not want dissidence to take over the forum.” He described the decision as a “purely functional” one.

Tansey had previously been criticised by child protection agency Kidscape who called the invitation a “publicity stunt” and “very disappointing”.

However, Chief Executive Michelle Elliot has now commended Tansey for his decision. She praised the way the Union had “looked at the arguments surrounding the invite, reconsidered the issue and were not afraid to admit that they made a mistake.

“It is very interesting, as Kidscape had never called for the Union to revoke the invitation.”

She continued, saying that it was “important for victims of such crimes that the perpetrators are not given a platform to explain or justify their actions for their own ends and means.
 
“Hallelujah for common sense!” she added.

Earlier Tansey had defended the original decision to invite Langham. He said that the invitation had not been extended for the publicity value but for the debate the talk would provoke. He stressed that he had never intended for the speech to be a chance for Langham to justify his conduct.

He said, “it’s not going to be a platform for him to turn up and defend his actions or to make his conviction out to be something else. We understand that he is a [criminal], he has gone to jail – he has done that.”

Tansey had explained that the debate would be dealing with the judicial system and its role in society, “a principle of liberal democracy, where once you have done your time you are absolved. At what point do we turn around and say [to criminals who have served their time], ‘Yes, you are member of society again’?”

He added that he thought that the vilification of sex offenders in society was an interesting point for debate, but stressed that he had had reservations about the debate from the beginning due to the message it might send out to those affected by the issue.

Despite the cancellation, he said, “the debate itself and the reasons itself for the invite are valid and I think people do recognize that.”

Several students have expressed disappointment over the cancellation of the invitation. One Christ Church historian, who wished to remain anonymous, questioned the Union’s decision, saying, “I understand the controversy surrounding the issue and the fact that the Union do, eventually, have to take a stand over something, but I feel that they have tried to make their point over the wrong issue.”

He suggested that the time to revoke a Union invitation would have been more appropriate two terms ago and questioned whether downloading child pornography is morally worse than being a Holocaust denier.

However, Tansey said that the press reaction to the invitations extended to Nick Griffin and David Irving last year influenced his decision. He said, “having looked at Luke’s term in Michaelmas, we have learned that not all PR is good PR. We obviously did think about the message this invitation was going to send.”

Chris Langham could not be reached and his agent has refused to comment on the matter.

Oxford University has come top of The Good University Guide’s national league table for the sixth time in seven years.

Vice-Chancellor John Hood said: "Oxford’s top position is the result of the commitment and enthusiasm of our outstanding scholars and students, assisted by committed administrative and support staff."

The University also came first in the subject tables for Geology, Middle Eastern and African Studies, Music and Politics.

More from The Independent

An Oxford scientist, Professor Gero Miesenböck, has made female flies produce the male courtship song using remote brain control.

The brain control techniques, which Miesenböck pioneered 3 years ago, use a laser to trigger certain actions. The ‘song’, which flies make by vibrating a wing, is never produced by females, so the findings indicate an astonishing similarity in male and female fly brains.

“Anatomically, the differences are so subtle,” Miesenböck told the Telegraph, “How is it that the neural equipment is so similar, but the sexes behave so differently?”

Researchers suggest that fly brains may have a ‘master switch’ that determines male or female behaviour.