Oriel has launched an investigation following news that the JCR Treasurer revealed the name of a student receiving money through the College Hardship fund.The details, including the name of the person and the amount received, were outlined in a JCR email about accounts sent by Treasurer James Pickering last weekend. The hardship fund is funded by all members of the JCR, which then allocates grants to students who are thought to deserve financial assistance.Pickering said, “What happened was we had a changeover of JCR Treasurer at the end of last term. I was going to distribute the accounts through an email, but before sending the email, I forgot to remove the name of the recipient of the hardship fund. When I released the accounts, the surname of the individual who received money last term was in the accounts. It was the previous Treasurer’s accounts but I mistakenly left the name in.”He added, “Naturally the day that this was released I was alerted to this fact and made an apology to the individual affected. The JCR obviously knows about this, I made an apology about it then and an email will be distributed to the JCR making an apology for this occurrence.”Oriel JCR president, Tom Callard, confirmed that the Dean and Bursar were investigating.Pickering responded, “I haven’t been alerted of this, all that we know is that a previous JCR Treasurer, Cameron Penny, threatened to tell the Dean. The President of the JCR was informed that the Dean would be told but I haven’t been contacted by either him, Mr Penny or the Dean about this. I had a meeting with the Bursar and the Accountant recently and this matter came up. Naturally, I was told to be more careful in future.”One Oriel student, who preferred to remain anonymous, said, “The JCR President seemed to think it was a small error, but if I were one of the people named, I would feel exposed and humiliated. I think they deserve at least an apology, if not to ask for the Treasurer’s resignation.” The Bursar was unavailable for comment.by Katherine Hall
PHOTO: Tom Wild

An Oxford pharmacologist has attacked the government’s plans to upgrade cannabis to a class B drug, ignoring directions not to speak to journalists.Professor Les Iversen (above), a leading expert on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), said that the government should not ignore the advice of the group, which is expected to conclude that reclassification is not justified.“I was not pleased to read what appears to be a deliberate leak about the government’s alleged intention to reclassify, regardless of advise received,” Iversen said.His outburst follows claims that the Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jaqui Smith are determined to reverse the decision to downgrade the drug to class C once the ACMD has completed their report in the next few months.He claimed that if the government went ahead with reclassification regardless of the ACMD’s report, its authority would be undermined.“If [we] were to recommend no change and this were to happen, I believe it would be the first time that any Home Secretary acted against the recommendations offered and it would call into question the whole function and future of this group,” he continued.The general recommendations of the ACMD report are not yet known, but ministers are already making clear that Jaqui Smith is prepared to overrule the expert group.According to the Reverend Martin Blakeborough, a former member of ACMD, Les Iversen and his collegues will be opposed to the Government’s stance. “There is no significantly new evidence to suggest that cannabis is any more harmful than in the last review we did eighteen months ago,” he explained. “There is no way that the ACMD would support any reclassification of cannabis unless there were some political shenanigans going on.”by Omotola Akerele

Oxford Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre (OSARCC) welcomes any move to open the debate on improving the ways in which the police investigate allegations of rape. Investigating and proving rape, particularly in cases where the attacker is known to the victim, is notoriously difficult, but that is no reason to stop attempting to bring rapists to justice.However, we are approaching the latest police proposal to use American style tactics of text messaging with caution. The basic technique involves the victim sending a text to their alleged attacker in the hope that they will reply and incriminate themselves in the process. Our primary concern with the adoption of such a practice is the possible effects this could have on the victim.
Despite the success of these ‘pretext’ messages in Canada and the States, it is inevitable that not every perpetrator will rise to the bait, and there must be a strong possibility that they will deny that anything happened outright. The impact of having their ordeal go unacknowledged or denied could be devastating for a victim. It could lead to them having to contend with an entirely different set of emotional responses and issues on top of those created by the rape itself.At OSARCC we strongly believe that it is the victim’s choice to decide whether or not they report an attack to the police. For those who do seek police intervention, it is to be hoped that it would also be their choice to decide whether or not to engage with this practice. It is estimated that up to 85% of rapes currently go unreported. Undue pressure to have any form of contact with their attacker and, in effect, to go ‘cruising for a possible emotional/psychological bruising’ in the event that it backfired, could deter even more rape victims from making formal complaints.A skewed perception of the number of false rape allegations is already prevalent in society and this is in part responsible for the low level of convictions. It would be grossly unfair if those victims who didn’t participate in these tactics, or who received a negative response, were henceforth viewed as less reliable by the police, the CPS, who make the decision whether or not to prosecute, and ultimately by a jury.Obviously many questions still remain to be answered about how pretext messages could be used to ensnare rapists, not least the admissibility of such evidence and how safe any convictions based upon it would be. OSARCC believes that there will only ever be a significant increase in conviction rates if survivors are given access to proper support alongside efficient police investigations. We remain committed to the view that, as important as successfuxford Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre (OSARCC) welcomes any move to open the debate on improving the ways in which the police investigate allegations of rape. Investigating and proving rape, particularly in cases where the attacker is known to the victim, is notoriously difficult, but that is no reason to stop attempting to bring rapists to justice.However, we are approaching the latest police proposal to use American style tactics of text messaging with caution. The basic technique involves the victim sending a text to their alleged attacker in the hope that they will reply and incriminate themselves in the process. Our primary concern with the adoption of such a practice is the possible effects this could have on the victim.
Despite the success of these ‘pretext’ messages in Canada and the States, it is inevitable that not every perpetrator will rise to the bait, and there must be a strong possibility that they will deny that anything happened outright. The impact of having their ordeal go unacknowledged or denied could be devastating for a victim. It could lead to them having to contend with an entirely different set of emotional responses and issues on top of those created by the rape itself.At OSARCC we strongly believe that it is the victim’s choice to decide whether or not they report an attack to the police. For those who do seek police intervention, it is to be hoped that it would also be their choice to decide whether or not to engage with this practice. It is estimated that up to 85% of rapes currently go unreported. Undue pressure to have any form of contact with their attacker and, in effect, to go ‘cruising for a possible emotional/psychological bruising’ in the event that it backfired, could deter even more rape victims from making formal complaints.A skewed perception of the number of false rape allegations is already prevalent in society and this is in part responsible for the low level of convictions. It would be grossly unfair if those victims who didn’t participate in these tactics, or who received a negative response, were henceforth viewed as less reliable by the police, the CPS, who make the decision whether or not to prosecute, and ultimately by a jury.Obviously many questions still remain to be answered about how pretext messages could be used to ensnare rapists, not least the admissibility of such evidence and how safe any convictions based upon it would be. OSARCC believes that there will only ever be a significant increase in conviction rates if survivors are given access to proper support alongside efficient police investigations. We remain committed to the view that, as important as successful prosecutions in the courtroom may be, they should remain secondary to the target of reducing rape itself. This can only be achieved by continuing to challenge the negative gender stereotypes that still persist in society today.OSARCC’s confidential Listening Service is open as follows:
Monday -6:30-9pm
Thursday – 6:30-9pm
Sunday- 6-8:30pm
Please call 01865 726295. We are happy to call you back.If you wish to volunteer or make a donation, email [email protected]

Krishna Omkar has proposed a change to Union rules that would see his lifetime ban from running in elections lifted, allowing him to run for President again at the end of this term.

The proposal, which will be heard in the debating chamber on Thursday 31 January, removes the power of election tribunals to disqualify candidates for life.

It also lifts lifetime bans on those already barred from running in Union elections. Since Omkar is the only person subject to such a ban, the change would pave the way for the ex-Treasurer to stand in elections at the end of this term.

The motion was triggered after Omkar presented a petition signed by 30 Union members.Omkar originally brought the proposal before the debating society’s Standing Committee, who can send motions to the debating chamber without signatures. 

However, he withdrew it after the group took half an hour to move past the first clause.Current President Emily Partington said that the Committee was not given enough notice about the motion. 

“Rule changes need really wide consultation… We didn’t have enough time in Standing Committee,” she said.

Partington is setting up a working party to reform the Union’s rules, inviting suggestions from those that sat on the election tribunal and appeal board who barred Omkar during the vacation. She has mandated the Standing Committee to attend the working party’s sittings.

A source close to the Union questioned “the validity of retrospective legislation”, and said that some current officers were uncomfortable with “legislating on the basis of one case.”

Nominations for next term’s presidency close today, with elections scheduled to take place on Friday of fourth week.

Returning Officer Alexander Priest was this week forced to change the eligibility criteria for the Union by-election after he received no valid nominations by the original closing date of last Friday.

The eligibility requirements meant that only Charlotte Fischer and ex-Secretary Clare Hennessy were eligible to stand, but Fischer resigned from Standing Committee earlier this term and Hennessy was not willing to run.

In his official statement, Priest admitted that his original criteria were “unintentionally restrictive”. He said, “It would be manifestly unjust to penalise members by making the eligibility pool too restrictive.”

The debate over applications to Oxbridge has flared up again after a government proposal suggested that potential state-school candidates should be identified at age 11.According to the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), students who showed potential at primary school level would then be mentored throughout their education. According to Sir Martin Harris, Director of OFFA, such a move would help maintained-sector students to compete for a place.Sir Martin is responsible for ensuring equal access to further education for pupils from less privileged backgrounds. He explained that talented state-school students would have similar chances of success in applying as grammar school children in the 1950s.However James Lamming, OUSU’s Access and Admissions Officer, defended Oxford’s record. He said, “Oxford continues to work hard on widening access, but measuring its success against government benchmarks that are based on a flawed methodology, which assumes every successful student would want to apply to Oxford, can be misleading.“I disagree there is a social bias in the admissions procedures: all tutors want to teach the very best students whatever their background. The key to increasing access is by increasing applications.  To do this we need to tackle the misconceptions that discourage many students from applying, and provide extra support to talented students that have been let down by the school system.”A spokesperson for the University explained the systems currently in place to encourage maintained-sector students to apply. They said, “There are various sustained programmes that Oxford University runs for students from under-represented backgrounds, such as the four-year ambassador scheme and the Black Boys Can Scheme.“Oxford regularly runs events with schools to enrich schools’ curricula and raise aspirations. Examples include the Christmas lectures and a forthcoming visit by Banbury School for a master class in English literature.”The proposal is indicative of the concerns about social mobility in Britain. Oxford has been criticised for failing to reach government targets regarding the proportion of state-school students studying at Oxford.In a recent Telegraph article, John Denham, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, accused Oxford and Cambridge of social bias leading to a huge waste of talent.A report by the Sutton Trust charity, published earlier this month, contradicted Denham’s statement. Instead it emphasised that many state school students were simply not choosing to apply to Oxford.
by Rob Pomfret

There was one grave and two candidates. It was either Bhutto or Gen Zia and since Gen Zia had the whip hand he got rid of Bhutto before Bhutto could get him.’ (Tariq Ali).The recent events of Benazir’s assassination in December 2007 have interwoven the current political situation in Pakistan with the historical event of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s execution; a contemporary drama replete with its sense of betrayal, broken promises, and the spectre of the US hanging over the country’s political fortunes.
For most Pakistanis the political dilemma of Bhutto’s execution remains a tragic episode in Pakistan’s history. But why does this story still haunt and capture the imaginations of the Pakistani people? Bhutto possessed a wealth of power and, more importantly, streams of support from the masses. At his political heights in 1971-72 he had the establishment in the palm of his hand. He could have reduced the army, carried out land-reform, educational reform – whatever he wanted. But despite his many successes while in office, from founding Pakistan’s Nuclear Programme to initiating the Islamic Summit of Muslim Nations, Bhutto did not fulfil all his promises. Yet the human connection that Bhutto enjoyed with the electorate ensured his place as a touchstone of Pakistani politics.
In September 1985 the BBC commissioned the writer Tariq Ali to make a three-part TV series on the circumstances leading to the overthrow, trial and execution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, President (1971-73) and Prime Minister (1973-77) of Pakistan, betrayed by his closest confidante the Army Chief General Zia ul Haq, who then imprisoned and executed Bhutto in 1979, installing himself as the President with the blessings of the USA. By January 1986 the script was completed, and discussions for casting the principals were underway. It was agreed that Zia Mohyedin would play the General and that the Indian actor Naseerudin Shah would be approached to play Bhutto.
Other approaches to stars were still being discussed when all proceedings were halted. Just as rehearsals were about to begin, the BBC hierarchy – under pressure from the Foreign Office – decided to cancel the project. Why? Firstly, because this play was written at a politically sensitive time when General Zia ul Haq, the President of Pakistan at the time, was being pressured by the USA to arm and train mujahideens leading the jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
According to expert legal opinion, there was a possibility of a whole range of defamation suits from Pakistan’s Head of State to judges involved in the case, who were all alive at the time. Secondly, due to the controversial nature of the screenplay, which implicated the CIA in the plot to overthrow Bhutto, the BBC came under legal pressure to censor the play. When asked by a BBC official whether he would eliminate all mention of the USA from the scripts, Ali was adamant that he would not alter the scripts, and rejected any form of censorship.
Now, after more than two decades, Ali has published the play in book form, entitled The Leopard and the Fox: A Pakistani Tragedy. It presents both the script, and the story of censorship. The book reveals how Gen Zia, with the support of the USA, played a dangerous game with the destiny of Pakistan. In snap shots we learn not only of his plans to betray Bhutto but also of the realisation of his brand of Islamisation, which turned out to be a nightmare for the majority – hanging, lynching and stoning – designed to create fear, and deter them from expressing their support for Bhutto at the time of his execution.
When asked by a TV reporter, ‘who is the Leopard and who is the Fox?’ Ali replied tactfully, ‘Without any doubt, the leopard is Bhutto who was brave, bold and courageous. As for the fox, one of his characteristics is that he is smart and cunning, which Zia turned out to be.’
by Sundas Ali

An historic medieval city, its crumbling foundations  shored up by endless restoration work and a tourist industry oblivious to its real concerns and studious preoccupations. A thousand ivory towers with their windows facing inwards. Institutions awash with subsidies and streets simply awash; sunk in its own past and reruns of Brideshead. Yet Venice is still the most compelling city in Europe.Is Oxford really going the same way? Specifically, are future LMH students really going to hail a gondola after one too many at the Bridge? Will the Joe Wellingtons of a later age have no choice but to make their way homewards by water and weir? The proposed new Bodleian building has already been cursed by modern Millenarians prophesying floods; the city’s suburbs grow damper every year; Christ Church students seem unable to step outside without toppling into the lapping waters. The Oxford Mail and the police, organisations never prone to exaggeration or the melodramatic, are already allegedly consulting leading architects about building a new Ark.These days, even the most stalwart of Republican candidates accepts that water levels are on the rise. Oxford is, after all, built on a floodplain. Oxford Waterworld may become a reality one day – but why worry? Think of the potential benefits: plenty of room for the threatened bargemen of Jericho; Oxford as the world’s leading marine research institute; enough depth for Magdalen’s sozzled toffs to jump off their bridge without breaking their legs. Scratch that last one. A valid point remains: the city will survive, it will adapt, and it’ll undoubtedly come up with a new set of winsome nautical ‘traditions’ to draw in a whole new raft of tourists. by Laura Pitel and Tom Seymour, Cherwell editors

Police rescued three LMH students from the river near Park End Street last Thursday night, after they had apparently decided to go skinny dipping in the river.The police arrived at Castle Mill Stream, by the Worcester Street car park, soon after midnight on Thursday night to find Tom Wherry, Joe Wellington, and Ryan McCrickerd struggling with the strong currents. They immediately threw emergency life rings to the students.While Wherry and McCrickerd grabbed hold of the life rings and were pulled to safety, Wellington initially refused to be rescued and started swimming away. He was swept about 300m along the river under two bridges and into a weir, where he was pulled out by the police. Having been brought to safety, the three were promptly arrested and each given an £80 fixed penalty notice.They were transported by the police back to LMH, despite the fact that Wherry does not live in college. There they faced a 3am tribunal of the Principal, Dean and Treasurer, who had been alerted to the incident by the police.PC Paul Phillips, of Oxford police station, said: “They were naked and must have thought it would be funny go swimming, but hadn’t realised the dangers and the strength of the water.“[Joe Wellington] luckily managed to come through the weir with only minor injuries but there was a strong chance that he could have been killed. Fast flowing water can be powerful enough to knock you over and just two feet of water can float a car”. He added that the men had been arrested and all three had received fixed penalty notices. “This was a small price to pay when their actions could have cost them their lives.”
“Once the students were in the patrol car, they sobered up pretty quickly and became quite apologetic,” he added.
Professor Christopher Shields, Dean of LMH, has been given the task of disciplining the students. He told The Oxford Mail, “The students are duly contrite and reflecting upon their actions and I want them to do something appropriate to address their indiscretion.” He said that the College treated the matter with the utmost seriousness and he would be encouraging them to carry out some form of community service. He added, “I have no doubt they will comply.“I think it would be appropriate if they helped the Council with preparing flood defences and I am discussing the matter with the authorities at the moment.”A spokesman from Oxford University said, “We need to ensure that the message about the dangers of jumping into rivers or streams is taken seriously by all the students. However, students at Oxford University have a responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner so as not to endanger themselves or others.”It appears that the students’ evening began at the Bridge, on Hythe Bridge Street. One friend, who was with them during the earlier part of the evening, said: “Tom was ejected from the Bridge for being too drunk and throwing up. As far as I know Joe was in the queue and didn’t get in, and I don’t know where Ryan came from, although I would assume from the Bridge.“They decided to go skinny dipping in the river, and left their clothes by the side. Apparently their clothes were taken – possibly by girls.“They have had a very stern talk from the Principal,” he added.Another friend said, “I think their actions were just a result of drunken btehaviour – they are fun guys who enjoy a laugh and maybe it just went too far this time.”The Oxford Mail, however, disagreed, branding them “idiots” on its front page. The message boards on oxfordmail.net were inundated with messages attacking the students for their thoughtless behaviour.One reader wrote, “They should have let them drown.” Others see the LMH students as typical of the “unbearable toffs” who go to Oxford University. Another person mocked the stereotype of an Oxford student, saying, “Jumping into rivers is the modus operandi of Oxford Uni students (see May Day for reference). They may be generally worthless to society, but the University welcomes their fees all the same.”
by Jack Farchy

Three Oxford students were victims of what is thought to have been a homophobic attack outside Coven II last Friday. The incident is the second triple attack in the past two terms, with gay clubbers fearing that the nightclub is unable to cope with homophoic violence in the area. The students, all in their second year, were returning home from the night club via a nearby car park when they were set upon by three men. One student from Brasenose, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “We left the club around quarter to three. The route we take passes a car park, which we cut through to get to Norfolk Street. We didn’t notice these guys until they were right up next to us. There was no provocation, they didn’t even say anything. I got grabbed by the shoulder and they hit me square in the face.”“They didn’t even say anything. I pushed one of them away and called the police. They didn’t make any effort to get out quickly, or flee the scene.” A second student, from Wadham, was hit in the back of the head and a third from Keble was kicked in the stomach.  All sustained injuries as a result of the attack. One student said, “I spoke to the police on the phone and told them that this area is renown for homophobic attacks, and that we could see the men heading off in the direction of the club. I’m aware that violence of this sort is happens in all cities but what disturbs me is that I can be attacked for something that is inherent and unchangeable about me.” Last term, three male St Peter’s students were beaten up near the club, which is located on Oxpens Road near the Oxford Ice Rink.The three students reported the attack to Thames Valley Police the following day, who will use CCTV footage to try and identify the perpetrators. A spokesperson said that the attack was being investigated as an act of violence rather than specifically homophobic, due to the lack of verbal exchange.  
However, the Brasenose student said, “I fundamentally believe that it was a homophobic attack.”
He added, “I’d like to see clubs taking more responsibility for their punters when they’re leaving. Given that Coven II’s clientele is majority queer on a Friday night, keeping an eye out would be no bad thing.”“It’s essentially a problem of education. You can put a massive police presence in the area but eventually the problem will just move elsewhere.”

OUSU’s referendum on its controversial ‘No Platform’ policy could be scrapped after Council postponed a vote on the issue last week.

The debate surrounding OUSU’s No Platform stance – which actively opposes allowing fascist or racist speakers to air their views – came to head after the high-profile ‘Free Speech Forum’ at the Union last term, and has divided JCR opinion across the University.Some common rooms have already voted to back a new, amended version of the policy, while others have rejected it outright, demanding a University-wide referendum.Under the newly-drafted policy, only individuals who use OUSU platforms to actually advocate violence are prevented from using them, whereas the old policy barred anyone who had previously advocated violence against a minority group.In addition, the new draft specifies that OUSU mediums covered in “independent agreements” – including The Oxford Student and Oxide Radio – would be independent of the policy.The policy would no longer be called ‘No Platform’, in order to emphasise its distinction from the NUS No Platform policy. This would leave NUS delegates to OUSU Council free to vote as they choose for the Oxford policy without being restricted by their NUS position.“It is better to leave the new policy unnamed, because of the negative connotations associated with No Platform,” said OUSU President Martin McCluskey.McCluskey called the referendum at the end of last term in response to the demands of JCRs.The new version of the policy , which was adapted by James Lamming, VP for Access and Academic Affairs, has been drafted in order to avoid the cost of holding University-wide vote on the current policy. “This was going to dominate the entire term and cost a lot of money,” McCluskey said.It has also been suggested that the poll, which had been scheduled for fourth week, was postponed because most students did not know enough about the details of the policy to make a well-informed decision.OUSU Council will vote next Friday to decide whether to go ahead with the poll, or to adopt the altered policy.
So far, Merton, Queen’s, St Peter’s and St Catherine’s have voted to accept the new draft, while Keble and Lincoln have voted in favour of a referendum. Other common rooms are due to vote on the issue this week.Keble JCR President John Maher said that while the new draft was better, it failed to resolve the fundamental problem. He said, “The compromise addresses specific issues in the old No Platform policy, but not the underlying issue of free speech. No Platform policies send out the message: ‘Free speech? No thanks.’ If people can’t speak freely at Oxford, then where can they?”Lamming disagreed with Maher’s comments. He said, “I completely agree with freedom of speech. But if we have a member who exploits our resources and breaks the law, we could be taken to the cleaners. It is difficult to believe there is anyone who would support the idea that OUSU should help people break the law.”Jonny Medland, JCR President at Queen’s, originally argued in favour of a referendum, but now supports the amended policy. He said, “We’ve been debating for over a year without understanding the issues. There is no longer any real interest in the debate: people just want the issue to go away.”St Peter’s JCR President, Joel Mullan, also expressed frustration with the process. He said, “I personally support the No Platform policy – I do not believe that our Student Union’s resources should be used to assist those who want to incite violence. However, OUSU has got to resolve this issue once and for all, so that it can stop wasting time debating No Platform and get on with the essential work it needs to be doing on things like rent, academic affairs, and welfare.”However, some believe that the newly drafted policy is too lenient. Dani Quinn, JCR President of Merton, said, “When freedom of speech is being exercised to the degree of inviting or promoting people who hold views that most Britons find abhorrent, I think that ignores other responsibilities and starts to inhibit other sorts of freedoms and hinders progress.”by Jack Farchy