Detainees at Campsfield House, along with a number of people from outside the centre, have protested the recent alleged assault of a man at the site.

The Campaign to Close Campsfield has come out in support of the protest, while the director of Asylum Welcome, Kate Smart, commented, “A detainee who suffers from severe epilepsy had an epileptic fit close to the shop within Campsfield. Several detainees witnessed this and were concerned.”

However, she also admitted, “I must stress that I cannot claim this is an accurate account — it is our best guess based on what we can piece together.”

Campsfield House is an Immigration Removal Centre in Kidlington. Last week, a large group of Oxford academics signed an open letter pressuring the PM to close Campsfield, while Cherwell reported from a protest at the controversial centre in October.

The Campaign to Close Campsfield stated that as of Sunday 30th December, 60-100 inmates had occupied the centre’s courtyard to protests against the conditions of their detention. In video footage recorded outside of the centre, protesters can be heard chanting, “England! Hear our voice!”

When asked for comment, the Home Office issued the statement, “We are aware of an incident at Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre on Saturday [November 29th] which resulted in an officer sustaining minor injuries.

“No detainees were injured and nobody required hospital treatment.”

In a video, circulated by Asylum Welcome, featuring several anonymous detainees’ testimonies of the incident, recorded via phone calls.

One detainee can be heard stating, “The Campsfield staff have beaten my friend very badly. And they’ve beaten up two or three guys more… My friend is in critical condition at the moment, we’ve called the police up… but they didn’t let the police come inside Campsfield.” 

Another detainee related, “The officer pushed him, and then he pushed him back as well, and the manager said to four other officers here, to beat him up. Five other detainees saw it. They put him down on the floor and they beat him up really badly.”

One testimony stated that the inmate who had been beaten up was “mentally disturbed”, and that he had been beaten by guards on an earlier occasion. They said, “This is the second time our guy has been beaten up. The first time he was beaten up, he had mental issues. He got mentally disturbed. But this is the second time they have beaten the same guy up. He’s already mentally disturbed.” Detainees report that they are not being allowed to see the injured man.

29 November 2014: Detainees Protest at Campsfield House IRC from Standoff Films on Vimeo.

The protesters’ demands include: permission to see their friend in order to see what happened to him; the release of the (at least three or four) people forced into solitary confinement; the punishment of the guards who allegedly mistreated the detainee; an end to inhuman treatment, deprivation of freedom, and separation from families.

Joanna Hynes, head of Oxford University’s Amnesty International group, said that the event on Saturday was not unusual. She spoke of the problems associated with Campsfield security being run by private firm Mitie, explaining, “This incident is unfortunately not abnormal in a place like Campsfield where basic rights are systematically denied to detainees. Harassment and violence on the part of Mitie staff is part of the everyday lives of these detainees, and with (according to the IMB’s most recent annual report) the vast majority of complaints made by detainees being referred back to the centre to be dealt with internally, there is little hope of holding Mitie staff accountable.

“The detainees who occupied the courtyard on Saturday could be heard chanting, ‘England! Hear our voices!’ — it is about time we listened to their pleas, and stopped shutting away  such abhorrent practices in industrial estates all over Britain to be run by unaccountable private security firms like Mitie.”

Vera Wriedt, a member of Oxford Migrant solidarity, described the difficulty she experienced trying to contact the protesters. She explained, “When trying to visit one of the people involved in the protest, I was threatened with arrest by the police. A few hours after the protest it was already impossible to get in touch with some of those who spoke out on Saturday, which probably means that their phones were confiscated and that they have been moved to solitary confinement or different detention centres.

“Immigration detention is indefinite and without trial. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees stipulates that ‘states shall not impose penalties … on refugees who … enter or are present in their territory without authorisation’. Nevertheless, detainees are imprisoned in Campsfield House for administrative convenience.”

Cherwell has contacted Mitie for comment.

St Cross students have set up a petition calling for a special meeting of their Student Association to debate the possibility of holding the canceled OSFL abortion debate at St Cross.

The original debate, entitled, “This House believes Britain’s Abortion Culture Hurts Us All”, was cancelled after Christ Church rescinded permission for OSFL to use the College’s premises. The prospective speakers Brendan O’Neill and Tim Stanley, both columnists for the Telegraph, have each written in protest at the events of last week.

Petitioners at St Cross would invite OSFL to hold their cancelled debate in the college under the new title, “Is there an ‘Abortion Culture?”. If the petition reaches its target, this motion will be debated at an extraordinary Student Association meeting.

The proponents of the petition, Jacob Reynolds, Matthew Kruger, and Zac Gross, told Cherwell, “We all believe strongly in a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion.

“At a recent St Cross Student Representative Committee meeting, a motion was proposed to hold an extraordinary Student Association meeting to discuss, given recent events, holding a debate on issues around abortion. The motion received ten votes in favour and four against, which, given the 75 per cent requirement for calling an extraordinary meeting, meant it failed to pass. Given the margin, we decided that it would be appropriate to afford the student body a say at a Student Association meeting, for which a petition is required.

“Our initiation of this petition should not be construed as supporting OSFL, or the original debate’s terms. Rather, we believe this issue should be decided by the whole student body.”

The Student Association normally only meets once a term. Çinar Baymul, President of the St Cross Student Representative Committee, explained, “Petitions to call extraordinary SA meetings are not a usual occurrence. My personal opinion, based on the precedent and the student reaction so far, is that it is unlikely that the OSFL debate will be held in St Cross.”

At the time of writing, the petition had 41 supporters on the change.org website, needing only 17 more to call an extraordinary SA meeting to debate the motion.

St Cross’s Kristen Nicole told Cherwell, “At the moment, the conversation is being controlled in such a way as to conflate the propagation of anti-human rights views with that of freedom of speech — the petition is not about the protection of freedom of speech. At best, it is a specious attempt to garner publicity. At worst, it is using the guise of ‘free speech’ to advance an agenda that at its core seeks to reduce women’s autonomy. Women’s fundamental rights are not up for debate.”

Niamh Mcintyre, co-Editor of Cuntry Living and author of a piece in The Independent which condemned the original debate, said, “Myself and hundreds of other students strongly objected to the loaded terms of the debate, which presupposed our society’s ‘abortion culture’. While I’m glad that St Cross students have attempted to address this objection, I’m very concerned that they haven’t yet addressed our other fundamental objection, the exclusion of people with uteruses from a debate about their bodily autonomy. Until OSFL includes people with relevant lived experience, many of us at Oxford will continue to be angry.”

Similarly, a student at St Cross, commented, “Wasn’t one of the main problems with this debate the fact that two cis-gender men debating women’s issues is basically irrelevant? Have a different debate — not the absolute shite that OSFL wanted to put on, but a debate that could actually be constructive and beneficial and open, instead of male dominated and toxically worded. I am not arguing that we should never debate anything controversial, but that this particular debate, with its absurdly warped phrasing and all-male panel, was an absolute clusterfuck.”

However, St Cross student Wybo Wiesma disagreed, commenting, “Unless you believe Oxford students to be irrational or weak-minded, there is no harm in exposing them to views for which barely a case can be made. Wanting to stop such a debate is either paternalism or indicates that you’d actually think they have a case and might win if allowed to speak. Both of these motives should not be allowed to determine the agenda at a university in a free country.”

Ana Bobic, also of St Cross, was, however, quick to make the distinction between prohibiting “free speech” and not giving someone a “platform”. She explained, “Academic institutions especially have the responsibility when giving platform. I cannot imagine what consequences for its reputation a debate hosted by the University with a motion ‘The LGBT culture in the UK hurts us all’ would have. The College has a responsibility to all its members, as well as to the broader public (as it is a public institution) as regards its choice to give or not to give a voice to. I don’t feel it is an obligation of this institution to grant this to everyone automatically. And this, let me remind you, is NOT infringing his or her freedom of speech, it is only denying the platform. Everyone is entitled to free speech in public and not to be prosecuted for it, everyone is entitled to shout as much as they like about anything, but there is no obligation on academic institutions to provide a microphone for it.”

Other students questioned the point of holding the debate now that O’Neill and Stanley’s speeches have been published. In response, the three proposers of the motion insisted, “We would like the opportunity to hear them defend their views against each other, and against contributions from the floor. Given the clear diversity, and passion, of opinion around this matter, we think that a meeting of the Students to discuss, in person, their respective views could only be beneficial.”

The University and College Union (UCU) has agreed to suspend a marking and assessment boycott while it enters into negotiations over pensions with Universities UK (UUK).

UCU members voted in favour of industrial action after changes were made to Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS). On November 6th, UCU members stopped marking work, returning marks and setting exams and coursework.

The assessment and marking boycott affected over 1.2m students. Such action is suspended until after a joint negotiating committee meeting in January 2015.

In a joint statement, the UCU and UUK said, “Both parties are committed to seeking a joint proposal for reform that offers an affordable, sustainable and attractive pension scheme, for both current and future members.

“Both parties are pleased that the agreement to suspend industrial action at this early stage will mean that students will not have been adversely affected and members of staff will not have had pay deducted.”

Margaret Watson and Terry Hoad, respectively the curent and the former Oxford UCU Presidents, told Cherwell, “Oxford UCU is very pleased that negotiations between the Union and the employers are taking place and that in the meantime the Union has felt able to suspend the industrial action. Our members find it painfully hard to take action which threatens the academic progress of students. 

“It is important to understand the causes that lie behind the dispute. University salaries are not very high, in comparison with those which many university staff might earn in other occupations, and have been declining in real terms over a good many years. The assurance of a decent pension is one of the things that have in the past made staff willing to accept those less than stellar salaries.”

Under the UUK’s proposed changes to the current pension scheme for university staff, a 40 year old professor who joins the scheme at 25 and retires at 66 on a salary of £75,000 stands to lose £230,251.

A PPE student from Trinity remarked, “Although I respect the lecturers’ right to strike, I feel strike action ultimately affects students the worst, and with tuition fees at £9,000 we are hardly the guilty party here. I’m very happy that UCU have decided against such a course of action for now.”

Other students were less than elated by the news. One stressed English finalist commented, “I’m not going to lie, I rather hoped there would be a marking boycott. Anything to give me more time on my thesis!”

Watson and Hoad continued, “The fight to defend pensions remains a crucial one. We hope that through negotiations in the next few weeks agreement will be reached on acceptable adjustments to pension arrangements.

“However, we have suspended but not called off the industrial action, and if the employers do not prove by 15 January that they are willing to come to an appropriate agreement with us, we will have to resume it.”

Trinity College JCR has voted to change the College’s student marriage system to a less heteronormative model, following the defeat of a similar motion earlier this term.

The Trinity marriage system originally worked by a ballot system whereby the year group was split into men and women and names were picked at random from each group, meaning that every undergraduate would end up married to a random student of the opposite gender.

A JCR motion to change this to a “free marriage system” was initially defeated.

However, Trinity undergraduate Celia Stevenson proposed a new motion which read, “This JCR would continue the marriage ballot but no longer include the preference for heterosexual marriages.”

Stevenson told Cherwell, “The motion passed this time and not last time because the JCR has an attachment to the ballot system and feels it is the best way to make sure nobody is left out.”

Stevenson further added that the motion addressed “concerns raised over the gendered nature of the ballot, which the majority who were at the meeting felt had the potential to alienate and ignore members of the JCR. I did think this motion would pass because it allowed people to keep the ballot system, which the majority were in favour of doing in the previous meeting, while making that system more inclusive.”

Trinity College Vice President and Treasurer Tom Carter said that the JCR “had nightmares reaching quorum”, but the motion was eventually legitimately passed with 30 for and nine against.

Second year undergraduate Oliver Lunt told Cherwell that the initial motion amending the Trinity college marriage system failed because “there are quite a few people each year who simply don’t engage with the marriage system at all, to the point that they wouldn’t know enough about the system to even opt-out of it.”

Lunt added, “I think that this new system is preferable to the original system because it removes the prominence of gender in college marriages, which I thought was entirely irrelevant since the vast majority of support that college parents seem to provide is either about general living arrangements in Oxford, or about academic issues.”

Oxford Against Slavery launched a video campaign in the centre of Oxford this week to raise awareness of modern slavery. Oxford Against Slavery is a new student-run campaign aiming to strengthen the Modern Slavery Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

The video campaign, organised by Frances Godfrey, took place on Cornmarket and was, according to the event’s Facebook page, “an interactive attempt to raise awareness in Oxford about modern slavery and to determine public perception of the issue.”

Passers-by were asked to be filmed taking part in a word association game that led to a more general interview about their awareness of modern slavery. The video will be posted on social media sites such as YouTube and Oxford Against Slavery’s Facebook page.

The bill currently passing through Parliament will introduce tougher sentences for traffickers and establishe an Anti-Slavery Commissioner. It also contains provisions to direct some of the money seized from traffickers towards supporting their victims and shall oblige large UK-based companies to release annual statements on the steps they have taken to ensure that slavery is not taking place in their supply chains.

However, the bill has been criticised for failing to focus on the needs of victims of trafficking. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group has produced an alternative version, which stresses that comprehensive victim protection measures are vital.

The campaign was co-founded by Natasha Stotesbury from Merton and Charlie Bishop from Wadham.

Stotesbury said, “Charlie and I became inspired to help strengthen the Modern Slavery Bill over the summer after working on a human trafficking research project with the OxPolicy society, learning about the bill through meetings with NGOs and visiting the House of Commons during the bill’s Committee stage.

“We are also delighted to have the support of the Oxford Hub’s Rights and Development Team, who are organising a film screening of Not My Life, an award-winning film about modern slavery. We are producing a report and hope to take our campaign to Parliament in the very near future.”

An Oxford Against Slavery spokesperson remarked, “We are especially concerned that the bill is deficient in providing care for victims. We believe the bill as it stands fails to support victims properly, leaving them vulnerable to further exploitation. In particular, we have focused our campaign on the role of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, which we believe should be expanded to include victim support.”

Walk Free’s 2014 Global Slavery Index estimates that there are 8,300 victims of modern slavery in the UK, although figures are likely to be higher than reported. Between 2012 and 2013 there was a 47 per cent increase in the number of victims of modern slavery reported in the UK.

Frances Godfrey, organizer of the video, stated that she felt the “student-led video campaign had been a successful event in raising the issue of modern slavery.”

On Wednesday Night, the OUSU Scrutiny Committee submitted a report to OUSU Council that found officers are “really working on OUSU’s image problem.”

The committee, established in Hilary 2010, aims to provide oversight over the work of the OUSU Executive. The report was written by Scrutiny Committee Chair Danny Waldman, as well as Rachel Jeal and Will Obeney. It was compiled after attempted interviews of all OUSU Sabbatical Officers, Part-Time Executive Officers and Divisional Board Representatives, with Sabbatical Officers being interviewed twice.

The committee concluded that OUSU President Louis Trup has so far done “a good job” and that this year’s sabbatical officers “have settled in well”, though the report noted that “teamwork” amongst the sabbatical could be improved.

Trup had earlier been asked by the Committee to provide a formal manifesto, by which the Committee could accurately assess Trup’s term as President. These manifesto pledges were summarised as focusing upon Clubs & Societies, Communications, Governance, the General Election, and Innovation.

It was noted that Trup had spent a lot of time “fighting fires” during his time in office. Examples of fires include the dismissal of Amelia Hamer, former Oxstu editor, the suspension of VP for Welfare Chris Pike, and NUS’ withdrawal of support for the Free Education demonstration. The report stated, “So far [Trup] has performed well in coping with the fires.”

The report also suggested that Vice-President for Graduates Yasser Bhatti’s different approach to the rest of the sabbatical team “has occasionally caused friction between officers used to working in different ways” though “other sabbatical officers appreciate Yasser’s insights, given he comes from a different background and has a different perspective to the rest of the team.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Bhatti commented, “I appreciate the sabbs agree I bring value through a different perspective. As the Android motto says: ‘Be together. Not the same!’” 

Another issue highlighted was the number of University committees that some sabbatical officers sit on, with Vice-President for Access and Academic Affairs James Blythe sitting on 30 different committees. In addition, it was found that sabbatical officers could more often delegate to the Part-Time Executive (PTE), with concerns raised that some PTE roles were in need of more “definition.”

It was found that the Part-Time Executive, elected in Michaelmas 2013, had been “incredibly successful”, with the committee applauding their work over the past three terms. The report also commented that “the changeover between last year’s and this year’s sabbatical officers has been handled well by the PTE.”

The report did, however, find “in places effort has started to flag a little.” Graduate Academic Affairs Officer Jena Meinecke was criticised for not appearing for her interview, and the report suggested “she consider her position”. In response, Meinecke subsequently attended 7th Week OUSU Council to provide a report on her activities.

Black & Minority Ethnic Students’ & Anti-Racism Officer Alba Kapoor’s contribution was also described as “low-key”, with the suggestion that “other members of the Executive are not aware of her existence”. In particular, the fact that no events were organised for Black History Month in October was noted, though Kapoor told the committee that she was looking to put on a speech or film before term ends.

Kapoor could not be reached for comment.

Assessing the performance of Divisional Board Representatives, the committee reached the judgement that “all settled in very well to their roles”. Some board representatives told the committee that they found there to be a “lack of transparency within the system”, which made their roles more difficult.

OUSU President Louis Trup told Cherwell, “I think the scrutiny report shows that OUSU’s officers are doing some pretty good things. Whilst it is clear that there are some members of the part-time executive who have not been pulling their weight, overall, the part-time executive team have been successful in improving OUSU and the University.”