Students at Baby Love on Tuesday 2 December witnessed a disturbance outside the club when two individuals were denied entry and allegedly verbally abused revellers.

An Oxford undergraduate who was at Baby Love during the incident said, “I saw a crowd of people outside and went to see what was going on. There were two police cars, and one man was handcuffed outside a car and speaking to a police officer. People who’d been outside told me that some men had come from nowhere, started calling everyone in the smoking area ‘faggots’ and lunging at people. With hindsight, it sounds mildly terrifying – at the time most of us were far too smashed to appreciate quite how risky the situation was.”

David Mark Dunning, a student at St Benet’s, commented, “I did witness a little of what went on at Baby Love on Tuesday evening/Wednesday morning. I didn’t witness anything in the club but I did hear that there was an incident inside. However, as I was leaving the club I was redirected from the steps at the front of the club and told to leave down the disabled access ramp as just at the bottom of the steps there was parked a police car. The bouncers blocked the way, but I could see two police officers were there, and I watched as they arrested two homophobic people, at least one of which, I was told, had a knife. After having watched the police handcuff the homophobes, I then proceeded to leave with my boyfriend, via the ramp, because I wanted to avoid any possibility of danger.”

A spokesperson for Baby Love told Cherwell, “We are aware that 2 residents of Simon House tried to enter the bar and were refused entry by the security on the door. At present we cannot confirm what, (or if anything at all was said), and / or to whom.

“Baby Love is sensitive to the fact that Simon House is a long established hostel for the Homeless and other vulnerable people in Oxford. The management is clear that they do not support any antisocial behaviour of any kind from its residents. They are in the process of investigating the incident and are following their strict protocol that governs the behaviour of its residents.

“Baby Love is working with the management of Simon House and the Police on this matter.”

Baby Love Bar relocated to its current site at the Castle Tavern on Paradise Street earler this year.

James Blythe, another Oxford student, commented, “Enjoying the final Baby Love of term fuelled by wonderful LGBTQSoc drinks, I was shocked to encounter homophobic abuse raining down from a neighbouring property. The staff of Babylove were amazing and reacted swiftly, as did the police, but it’s a grim reminder of how much violence LGBTQ people routinely experience in 2014 and from which my privilege generally protects me.”

In response to the incident, Chris Pike, OUSU VP for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, commented, “It is very unpleasant to hear that LGBTQ students and locals had to endure this deeply unpleasant behaviour. I am pleased that action was taken quickly to combat the problem, and I hope that Baby Love will continue to act to prevent this behaviour around their venue in future. OUSU will continue to work for LGBTQ students as a community of our university as a top priority, and any students who have had individual problems as a result of their sexuality or gender should feel able to get advice and support from our Student Advice Service.”

Thames Valley Police were unavailable for comment.

OUSU has conducted a recount of votes from this term’s elections, following the revelation that people who had already graduated were able to log in and vote. The results of the election were unaffected by the recount.

According to a statement made by OUSU, five students who were ineligible to vote in the elections and who should not have been able to vote logged into OUSU’s website and cast their votes.

The statement, which was published on OUSU’s website and sent to all candidates in the 2014 elections, reads, “For the current academic year, OUSU and the University have put in place a new and more secure system for ensuring OUSU has access to up to date and secure data about its student members. This involves the provision of data to OUSU by the university via a third-party IT support company. In this instance there was an error in the data transfer that left out information about students that should have allowed OUSU to automatically exclude graduated students from the elections.

“As a result, five students ineligible to vote in this year’s OUSU elections had their votes registered and cast. Having identified this issue, OUSU has re-counted the votes for each post and we are able to confirm that none of the results have changed as a result.  

“The University and OUSU have already taken steps to ensure that this problem (which is particular to the election process only) will not arise in the future.”

In addition to publishing a statement, OUSU has removed its list of results and voting numbers from OUSU.org.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10677%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Voting in this year’s elections was conducted on OUSU.org, after the original Mi-Voice system was abandoned. Mi-Voice was found to be unreliable after it was revealed that the result of last summer’s referendum on Oxford’s affiliation with NUS had been manipulated, and the referendum was declared void.

Earlier this term, a number of colleges were unhappy with OUSU’s handling of the situation, with one JCR Returning officer calling the fact that OUSU failed to keep JCRs up to date about the state of the voting system “chaotic and intolerable”.

Will Obeney, the first runner-up in the presidential election, tweeted his support for OUSU’s handling of the matter.

Delighted at fast response by @ousunews over issues with the statutory elections. http://t.co/UKV4NeAbbV

— Will Obeney (@WillObeney) December 5, 2014

Meanwhile, Becky Howe, the winning presidential candidate, commented, “It’s good to see that OUSU has responded very quickly to this unforeseeable problem, by conducting a recount, and investigating how to prevent such a situation from arising again.”

While most of the positions in this year’s race were unopposed, the election for Vice President (Access & Academic Affairs) was a close one. Greg Auger lost out to Cat Jones, despite winning almost 50 more first preference votes. In the end, the result was determined by second preference votes, though these numbers were not released.

Hundreds of students at Warwick gathered outside the University’s Senate House yesterday to express their anger about police response to student protests. Students also occupied a university space in order to have an open dialogue about the events on Wednesday 3 December.

On Wednesday a group of students at the University of Warwick staged a peaceful sit-in at Senate House as part of a national day of action in support of free education, called by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts.

Police have said that they were called to the University by security services after a member of staff was assaulted by a protester. Three men were later arrested – one on suspicion of assault, and two on suspicion of obstructing the police; they have since been bailed, but their bail conditions state that they are not allowed to return to campus. This version of events is contested by some of the students who were present; speaking to Channel 4 News, Callum Cant, a 20-year-old English student, said, “it’s utterly unbelievable to suggest that [a protester assaulted a member of staff]. It just wouldn’t fit with how the day panned out… It wasn’t really an occupation because we weren’t blocking anything. We spent 20 or 30 minutes talking with security. Then police cars turned up and security told us they were for us.”

Footage has emerged on social media showing police clashing with protesters; a police officer is seen wielding a can of CS spray, which was used on at least two students. West Midlands Police have confirmed that a taser gun was drawn, but not used on any protester.

West Midlands police have issued a statement in response to allegations of excessive use of force on student protesters stating, “During the incident a taser was drawn as a visible and audible warning to prevent a further disorder. CS Spray was also used by police during the protest when a group advanced on officers. Police officers and security staff from the university worked together to ensure everyone was safe.”

Coventry Police Commander, Chief Superintendent Claire Bell, said in the same statement, “We are aware of videos of the protest being circulated on social media sites. We expect the highest standards from all officers, and if any officer is found to have fallen below these standards, they will be thoroughly investigated.”

In a statement the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Nigel Thrift, said, “Let me be clear that the police were called solely to investigate the alleged assault on a member of staff and not in response to the protest on campus. When the police arrived our security team still endeavoured to get the individual alleged to have made the assault to fully identify himself before the police engaged directly with the protestors.

“Sadly that individual, and others present, would not co-operate with this request and the police were obliged to intervene directly. I, like many others, have been saddened by the images of what then occurred which saw police and students having to engage in and resolve an unnecessarily challenging situation which led on from the actions of one individual.”

There has been an angry response from many on and off campus to the incident. A change.org petition started by Warwick alumni demanding an unreserved apology to students who faced ‘police violence’, a review of the University’s policy on police liason, and a guarantee of assistance from Warwick University for students who want to make complaints or take legal action against the police, has gathered over 2000 signatures.

Yesterday around 100 students occupied the top floor of the Rootes builing on Warwick Campus and issued demands to both the University of Warwick management and to the West Midlands police. Demands included an apology from the West Midlands police and for the University of Warwick to release a statement about the incidents which occurred in which they declare their total support to Warwick students.

Speaking to Cherwell from inside the occupation, Hattie Craig, a student from the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts who has been involved in organizing yesterday’s action, described the mood on campus, commenting, “The feeling on campus has been incredible. I was leafleting for the protest today but all the students were already aware and were pretty shocked and horrified at the way the police had dealt with the sit-in yesterday. It’s been great to see that there’s been a really strong response- there were over a thousand people out on campus today showing their support. Students thought that it was necessary to have a strong response to police brutality. We haven’t ever seen CS gas used at student protests in this country;  we couldn’t let this go unnoticed. A hundred of us are currently staging an occupation and we will shortly be issuing demands to both West Midlands police and the University.”

Amnesty International has also voiced its concerns about the events with its UK Arms Control Director, Oliver Sprage, saying, “Videos of the incident and accounts from several eyewitnesses raise serious concerns about whether the police acted heavy-handedly and seriously endangered people at the scene.

“We’re worried that West Midlands Police are becoming increasingly trigger-happy with Tasers.”

Protests in solidarity with Warwick students have also been held at campuses around the country, including at Lancaster, Manchester, London and Leeds. 

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.”