After a week of controversy and sedition, last week’s John Evelyn has been summarily executed by the Cherwell editorial team. Though Draconian, the crime was clear: writing a column of general interest. More in tune with the Evelyn ethos, your new editor returns to the deep, deep well of arcane and poorly-punctuated gossip generated by small-minded and vindictive individuals in Oxford’s most beloved institutions. This will subsequently be painstakingly checked by the Cherwell Editorial Team to ensure nothing of public relevance is included, and later greedily inhaled by its dwindling readership of seven. Sausages, laws, and John Evelyn columns.

What a week at the [insert name of institution here]! Bad news for all seventeen prospective slates for next term including Rupert, Monty, and Ciara, all of whom have suffered grievously this week’s attempted coup of Rupert from his position as Director of Performative Delivery. A group of individuals too unpopular to win elections on their own but who wish they were QCs or running a small corrupt state are planning a spiteful Rules Change to allow their Preferred Candidate free reign. Has the current prospective candidate spilt enough blood to qualify under Rule 19? At the right Public-Private Partnership Meetings? Mysterious things [but mostly forgeries] have happened to nomination forms. It is too soon to tell whether [former Presidential candidate desperately seeking parental relevance] will return, – but suffice to say prospective candidates might want to thumb over section (c)(i)-(viii) of the new rules, with reference to every sixteenth letter at the full moon, with the utmost care. As one outgoing President said to another in the Office, “it’s not a Bug; it’s a feature”: permission given? 54(b). (Could you understand this joke? If so, go outside! Get some sunshine!).

News also springs from that regular fountain of gossip, the Disciplinary Committee. If you seek the validation you did not receive as a child, you too could sit on (or before) one of these Hallowed Committees. Those who appeared before committees this week at various Oxford institutions included the following misdemeanours: financial irregularity, election misdemeanour, referring to a colleague as an “incel”, bigamy, possession of morals with intent to supply. Are you thinking of applying for Oxford Union Appointed Committee? If you are, stop. If you have not, rejoice that you are in a happy majority. In other news, a frankly bizarre incident involving a swimming pool and some intoxicants: the annual jaunt to Ascot ended in the two individuals (you know who you are!), clad only in their boxer shorts, floating beside one-another in scenes reminiscent of early Monet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do.