The online-based taxi firm Uber is currently filing an application for an operator’s licence with Oxford City Council after more than 50,000 people tried to access the service in Oxford despite it not having been launched here.

The mobile application allows smartphone users to request private hire cars without speaking to an operator. Since its launch in London in 2012, the multinational company has handled over 20 million rides in the city.

A spokesperson for Uber told the Oxford Mail, “The number of people who have been opening our app in Oxford is larger than average so that means there is certainly demand for our service and we are excited about that.”

Uber further told Cherwell, “Millions of people across the UK already use Uber to get a convenient, safe and aff ordable ride at the push of a button and we want to bring this option to more towns and cities.”

They noted, however, that the filing of the application “is not an indication of when [Uber] might launch.”

Colin Cook, a councillor on the Oxford City Council licensing committee, told Cherwell that Uber initially applied for a licence in March 2015.However, the requirements of the licence have not yet been met, as the company is “still looking for premises to operate out of in the city”.

Cook added, “If Uber gains an operator licence they will only be using drivers who have already been licensed by the relevant local authority.”

An operator at the local taxi firm Radio Taxis Oxford said that the company is not worried about the competition.

He told Cherwell, “We have very high standards of drivers and service which I personally don’t think an online-based company can keep up with.

“Our prices are incredibly reasonable compared to most so I think we have the upper hand on this also,” he added, pointing out that Uber’s surge pricing policy could turn away potential customers. He warns that such policies “would affect the general public a lot more than they realise, especially if local companies were to implement the same system.”

Doctora at English universities are to be issued with guidance advising them to contact parents if they have serious concerns about the mental health of students.

Currently, most universities and college doctors refuse to alert parents, due to concerns that it would be a breach of the student’s right to confidentiality as an adult. Legally, students are still adolescents rather than adults up to the age of 25.

This move follows the death of Andrew Kirkman, aged 20, a Physics and Philosophy student at Balliol College, who took his own life in December 2013. Earlier that week he had been told by his tutor to take two terms of medical leave and had seen his college doctor, who prescribed him antidepressants. His parents were unaware he was suffering from depression.

The guidance, issued by Dr Geoff Payne, medical director for NHS England in the Thames Valley, reminds GPs that under-25s should be monitored in the first few weeks after starting a course of anti–depressants due to suicide risks.

Dr Payne told The Times, “Students who go to elite universities are used to being successful. Coping with any degree of failure becomes difficult, especially if they are socially isolated.

“It is hard to argue that, knowing young people might be at risk and knowing their parents might actually protect them, one should not take that step to let them know.” Wendy Kirkman, mother of Andrew Kirkman, said she hoped the advice would save the lives of other students.

She told Cherwell, “I’m not entirely sure that Geoff’s comments about disclosure are changing anything, apart from making the situation clearer and giving GPs more explicit guidelines.

“People seem to be frozen into inaction by the fear of disclosing information to the parents of students who are over 18, when they have always had the legal right and perhaps obligation to do so anyway. Who an ‘appropriate person’ would be is always open to discussion, but if there is any concern that the parents should not be informed, this decision could be taken at a later juncture once the immediate risk of self harm has been addressed.

“There is a lot more to these guidelines than just the question of whether parents should be informed if their student children are suicidal. Closer monitoring of such cases and intensive talking therapies is also recommended,” she added.

But Dr Payne’s new guidance protocols have not been met with acclaim in all quarters.

Alasdair Lennon, OUSU Vice-President of Welfare & Equal Opportunities cited students’ “right to privacy,” telling Cherwell, “I find these developments deeply concerning and I will be taking measures to oppose them. I have requested an urgent meeting with Dr Geoff Payne, the individual responsible for the guidance. I will also be writing to the Association of College Doctors to express my concern over these developments. I find it immensely worrying that, without consultation, this guidance has been approved, and that our right to privacy has been degraded.”

Charles Foster, a medical law tutor, spoke to the legality of broaching doctor-patient confidentiality. Foster explained to Cherwell that, “The law is clear enough, but its application is sometimes not. Doctors owe a duty of confidentiality to their patients. But that does not mean that there is an absolute duty to keep all secrets. Doctors can disclose information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in maintaining confidentiality.

“Where non-disclosure could result in death or serious injury, the secret can be disclosed. “In the case of a depressed young adult the doctor would have to make a judgment about disclosing the diagnosis to a parent. In some cases disclosure might well help to avert a risk of a serious danger. There, the law would support disclosure. Doctors should in every case seek to obtain the patient’s consent to disclosure to a third party.”

Marco Narajos, Co-Chair of Oxford mental health campaign Mind Your Head, questioned whether the guidelines would even be effective, telling Cherwell, “The problem with this policy is that it places the blame on the individual. It assumes that if only the individual were able to talk about their feelings to their family, their mental health problem would be resolved. “The problem here isn’t non-disclosure. The problem is the lack of support systems in place, such as long waiting lists to receive psychological therapies, such as CBT and psychodynamic therapy.”

Narajos also noted that, “As the General Medical Council outlines in its confi dentiality guidance in ‘Good Medical Practice’, doctors should keep matters confi dential, otherwise patients may be less likely to seek medical attention. The key is to find out from students what they would like to share with whom and in what circumstances. Disclosures are fine if the student consents to it.

“Trust is key in the patient-clinician relationship. I would still urge anyone who are having mental health difficulties to seek help – the Counselling Service, peer supporters, welfare officers, college chaplains, Nightline, the Student Advisory Service, the Samaritans, and yes, even GPs.”

OUSU Council passed a motion on Wednesday that resolves to support protests in Bedfordshire against Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre on 12th March.

The endorsement follows successful motions at Magdalen JCR and Wadham SU to support the demonstrations by donating £250 each.

Proposed by OUSU Vice-President for Women Lucy Delaney and Hannah-Lily Lanyon, OUSU’s motion notes that “human rights abuses take place in Yarl’s Wood, and there have been allegations of sexual violence, a crime which is particularly traumatic for those escaping confl ict in which rape is used as a weapon.”

It resolves to update similar policy passed in Trinity Term 2014 concerning Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre. The Campsfield policy prior to modifi cation stated that Campsfield “should be closed as part of a programme to drastically reduce and ultimately end immigration detention in the UK” and that government policy cannot remain unchanged given “the demands of natural justice”.

It has been amended to change the title to “Campsfield, Yarl’s Wood and other Immigration Removal Centres” and to add mention of Yarl’s Wood and other centres throughout the policy’s text.

Rather than donating to Movement for Justice as the two college JCRs did in order to subsidise coaches to and from the protests, OUSU intends a more media-focused strategy, such as inclusion in the OUSU President’s weekly newsletter.

Lanyon told Cherwell, “OUSU is a powerful platform to address social justice. Every student body should have a place to express their dissent against injustices like Yarl’s Wood and other detention centres, and as a group we have a greater impact – OUSU is a place to vocalise our anger against the government’s current racist and homophobic detention policy in a louder voice.

“Campsfield is a male detention centre whereas Yarl’s Wood is for women, and I think it’s important that we support all genders,” Lanyon added. “The women at Yarl’s Wood can benefi t from our solidarity as Oxford in particular is a highly visible, venerated university with much media coverage, which can enable their campaign to gain greater awareness.”

OUSU plans to achieve this by working in partnership with the Common Rooms which have already passed motions against detention centres, and encouraging others to use the template they have set up to facilitate the process. Lanyon said she hopes that through, “An intercollege support movement as well as overarching OUSU support we can build a really strong campaign against detention centres and have Oxford lead as a pioneering university opposed to racist and homophobic detention laws.

“Both Oxford and Yarl’s Wood are bubbles. However, where Oxford is an elite bubble of privilege, Yarl’s Wood and other detention centres are virtual prisons in which inmates’ human rights are regularly abused.”

The University of Oxford has received £13.5 million in new funding for DPhil students in engineering and physical sciences.

The announcement was made on 1st March by universities and science minister Jo Johnson to the University of Oxford’s Networked Quantum Information Technologies Hub. Additional funding will also be geared towards further developing research into quantum technologies.

The endowment could place Oxford at the forefront of British science and help advance technologies used to deliver products for anything from more accurate brain-scanning and earlier Alzheimer’s diagnosis to smaller and more powerful computers.

The funding comes as part of The Doctoral Training Partnerships which has been awarded to 40 universities including Southampton, Aberdeen, Cardiff and Belfast. The scheme will benefi t over 2,000 students. The funding is a national investment in science totalling £204 million, with £167 million for Doctoral Training Partnerships and £37 million as part of the UK’s National Quantum Technologies Programme.

Jo Johnson’s announcement was followed with a warning that Britain must remain in the European Union in order to continue receiving certain funding. Johnson said in his speech, “We are committed to securing the UK’s position as a world leader in science and innovation. The government is ensuring major new discoveries happen here, such as the creation of super-powerful quantum computers which scientists are working on in Oxford. This new funding builds on our protection for science spending by supporting research in our world-leading universities and helping to train the science leaders of tomorrow.

“It’s hugely important that we continue to benefi t from our share of the funding fl ows that we get from the EU and that we remain a networked science superpower.

“Our European partnerships are some of the most successful of our science collaborations and we want to support those.”

While visiting the University, Jo Johnson was shown laboratory and workshop facilities and met some doctoral students at the University’s Networked Quantum Information Technologies (NQIT) Hub and Mobile Robotics Group.

Professor Ian Walmsley, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research, told Cherwell, “The funding announced by the government is a very welcome investment in the future of science and technology for the nation. At Oxford, it will support the best postgraduate research students from across the UK to work with leading academics and researchers on cutting edge projects from quantum physics to robotics and from molecular synthesis to novel materials.”

Andrew Briggs, Professor of Nanomaterial and head of Oxford’s quantum technology investment, shared the sentiment. He told Cherwell, “The government funding for £270m for quantum research builds on the national capacity created during the Quantum Information Processing Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Oxford continues to be a leading player in quantum technologies, nationally and internationally.

“The grant to Oxford this week for a facility which I shall direct will signifi cantly accelerate the route to practical technology and industrial innovation, by enabling us to test working quantum components in a simulated whole environment.”

Vice-Chancellor Louise Richardson welcomed Johnson’s visit, saying in a statement released on the Oxford University website, “Quantum technologies promise to revolutionise the way we live our lives. At Oxford we stand at the forefront of this revolution through our world-class research and training programmes.

“It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister to Oxford to announce support for this key research area, as well as signifi cant funding for doctoral places in engineering and physical sciences that will help us continue to train the leading scientists of the future.”

Chancellor of Oxford and last Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, has faced criticism from the Hong Kong Education Bureau after he claimed that universities in China and Hong Kong are facing threats to free speech and autonomy from the government, in an article published in Project Syndicate.

Patten claimed that he tried to change the system in Hong Kong whereby the Governor was the Chancellor for all government-funded universities, but “the universities would not allow [me] to resign gracefully.” Student unions in Hong Kong are currently protesting against this practice.

The Education Bureau, however, said in a statement, “The current practice of the Chief Executive being the Chancellor of the governmentfunded universities precisely stems from the then Governor Patten’s decision.”

They also claimed that Patten himself approved of the system and chose not to revise it during his tenure as Governor, nor when Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997. The Bureau further stated that Patten “was acting in complete ignorance of the facts.”

While Patten expressed happiness at the Education Bureau’s statement that faculty selection is a part of the academic freedom and institutional autonomy, he nonetheless hit back, telling Ming Pao that the Bureau’s statement, “Must have been the thinking of the chief executive [Leung Chun-ying], but the chief executive is mistaken.”

Patten claimed in his original article, “Because students strongly supported the pro-democracy protests in 2014,” which were against proposed Hong Kong electoral reform, Chinese authorities believed that “the universities where they study should be brought to heel.”

This too was refuted by the Education Bureau, who responded, “Such a claim is totally groundless and a sheer fabrication and the HKSAR Government expresses deep regret.”

Professor Peter Mathieson, President and Vice- Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong, was also quoted by the Education Bureau, pointing out that the terms “academic freedom” and “institutional autonomy” are not synonymous and so should not be used interchangeably. He was further quoted as saying that most educational institutions lack full institutional autonomy.

Nathan Chan, a law student at Oriel from Hong Kong, told Cherwell, “First and foremost, I am in agreement with what Chris Patten has said with regards to the erosion of autonomy and free speech in universities in Hong Kong.

“As of the present, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is traditionally appointed as the chancellor of all government-funded universities. This has not an issue of much concern for long, but this no longer was the case after the Umbrella Revolution, where the supporters of the pro-democracy movement were predominantly university students.”

The Mansfield Ball, which took place last Saturday, received a host of bad reviews from ball attendees.

The theme ‘Doors of Perception’ promised the Ball to be an “extravagance of sensory stimulation” and “incredible music, dazzling light and colour, and food and drink to blow the doors of perception completely off their hinges.”

However, a second year from Merton, who left the Ball at midnight, told Cherwell, “The coolest part of the ball was an illuminated eye watching over us; if only the Mansfield Ball committee had been so considerate in watching over our basic needs on a cold February night. I was happily tucked up in bed and woke up without even a touch of hangover. How disappointing.”

A Pembroke student who attended the Ball commented, “The hot food ran out by 11, there was no appropriate main bar in the main stage and no hot drinks. Even if the music had been good in the main stage it was too cold for anyone to have even wanted to think about dancing. The highlight was smoking my own cigarettes and stealing some marshmallows and toasting them on an outside heater, hardly worth the £90 expenditure.”

Despite negative reviews, Instagram revealed some positive comments towards the Ball. One ball-goer posted, “Casually clubbing in a chapel as you do #mansfieldball #club #church #weird #goodtimes.”

An attendee on the Facebook page also showed positivity, posting, “Thank you for all your hard work that resulted in a fabulous night!”, while a Mansfield second year commented, “It was definitely an original experience.

“It’s a shame the ‘pleasure dome’ was chilly but the fact that the chapel was transformed into a dance-floor was genuinely amazing and was so buzzing. Overall it was just a great night.”

However, several attendees did write on the Facebook event during the ball with complaints such as “Can we get some standard drinks somewhere without too much sugar. I have diabetes” and “M9 where are the tunes.”

One second year who attended the ball commented on the Facebook page, “Cold as balls not gonna lie”.

The Ball committee were quick to defend themselves. Responding to a question on the event page about the lack of food and drinks, the President replied, “Because supplies of these things ran out due to much higher demand than expected. This is fairly obvious. Thanks for your constructive comments though, we’re glad our guests were so very perceptive.”

A recent report by the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information has ruled that, “there is no convincing evidence for the exclusion of universities and higher education institutions from the scope of the [Freedom of Information] Act.” This means that recent calls from Oxford University alongside other Russell Group Universities for an exemption from the act now seem unlikely to make further headway.

Representatives of the Russell Group stated in the report, “In this new market environment, universities and alternative providers are in competition for the same students and the same private-sector partnerships to augment their educational offering.”

The Russell Group were joined in their calls for reform of the application of the act by the “oral evidence” of representatives from the pressure group, Universities UK. They too argued, “At the time that the FOI legislation was introduced, we were talking about a very different sector in England. Now we are operating in a highly competitive environment, a consumer market which is now controlled very much by the Competition and Market Authority.”

However, the commission was not swayed by these arguments. Noted in the report was an understanding that “although it is correct that the environment in which our universities operate has altered significantly since the Act was going through Parliament, they continue to benefit from large sums of public money (albeit that much of this comes to them indirectly). We found the evidence that the requirements of the Act placed ‘public’ universities at a competitive disadvantage compared with wholly private providers unpersuasive.”

Over the course of the campaign for exemption, certain voices in the media have stressed the importance of the Freedom of Information Act’s application to the universities. The Guardian told the commission that an FoI request to Russell group universities regarding their sexual assault and rape policies led to, “Two front page stories on the issue, and the follow-up led to the business secretary Sajid Javid announcing that he had ordered Vice-Chancellors to look into sexual assault and sexist ‘lad culture’ on campus and best practice to deal with it.”

Defence of the act also came from activist groups, with Greenpeace noting that the act had aided their work in the past. It was observed that “Greenpeace’s latest investigation, which involved scores of freedom of information requests, found three quarters of all the funds given to Universities, were given by just two companies: Shell and BP.”

Importantly, the continued application of the Freedom of Information Act to Oxford University means that Cherwell can also carry out a more detailed level of scrutiny of the university most of its readership attends. Leading stories, such as Cherwell’s exposure of the gender gap at finals have only been possible this term as a result of the Freedom of Information Act.

A University of Oxford spokesperson told Cherwell, “Oxford University fully supports the need for universities to be transparent: we already publish more detailed information about its student body and admissions process than most other institutions.

“The Freedom of Information Act, however, imposes considerable costs on universities in terms of both time and resources, adding to the already heavy regulation of the higher education sector. The University has noted its concerns about the Act as part of its recent response to the government’s higher education Green Paper.”