OUSU council on Wednesday evening rejected an attempt to force OUSU’s NUS delegates to vote against “any motion aligning the NUS with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) at the NUS national conference”.

The motion, proposed by Ben Goldstein and seconded by Adam Dayan, was proposed due to fears that full BDS might become an official NUS policy at the National Conference in April. The motion fell, with 30 votes for, 72 votes against, and 28 abstentions. This means NUS delegates now have a free vote on BDS.

BDS is a global movement to put political and economic pressure on Israel to agree to certain pro-Palestinian demands. These demands include an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, recognition of the equal rights of Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel and giving Palestinians a right to return to their original homes. BDS ranges from arms divestment to a full academic and cultural boycott from Israel.

The proposers of the motion disagreed with the methods of the movement. The motion argued that a wholesale boycott of Israel “puts at risk any British student relationships with all Israeli organisations”. It also contested that the BDS movement “alienates moderate Israelis and strengthens the right-wing ultranationalist narrative in Israel”.

Dayan and Goldstein told Cherwell, “The mood in the room was mixed and unfortunately discussion of procedural motions obscured a substantive debate on the issues of BDS. It’s a shame that many people weren’t able to represent their JCRs because the debate was cut short.

“We trust that our NUS delegates will take into account the many objections to the odious BDS movement raised by Oxford students.”

James Elliott, one of the leaders of the opposition to the motion, was delighted with the result, commenting, “It is very clear that Oxford students have profound concern for the colonial occupation of Palestine, and it is no surprise OUSU Council rejected this rushed, hyperbolic motion.

“This was all a proxy fight about the NUS’s existing support for BDS, a policy which I proudly seconded and continue to uphold. It turns out that students don’t think Israel is an illegitimate target beyond our criticism and action. The question is what we do to extricate ourselves from that complicity.”

The OUSU motion split opinion in many common rooms. The JCRs of Magdalen and St John’s both mandated their representatives to vote for the motion at OUSU Council, whilst Wadham, University, and St Peter’s JCRs mandated their representatives to vote against it.

In other JCRs, the motion provoked extensive debate, with Balliol JCR’s meeting lasting over three hours. It eventually decided to mandate two of its representatives to vote against the motion, and one in favour. At Hertford, an open letter supporting BDS was circulated, subsequently becoming the cause of much controversy within the College.

Meanwhile, the JCRs of Queen’s, Pembroke, LMH, New, and Jesus all conducted online polls of their members to determine how their representatives should vote.

The motion itself was subject to two attempted amendments during the course of debate.

The first amendment considered was an attempt by the original proposers to clarify what the motion meant. Representatives from Somerville were mandated to seek clarification on the meaning of ‘the BDS movement’, as the motion referred to it. Some students believed that it was unclear whether the motion referred to the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), or the general principle of sanctions against Israel. Several mandated JCR representatives stated their opposition to the amendment on the basis that it was undemocratic, as it was not proposed with enough time for them to consult their respective JCRs. The amendment was defeated with 25 votes for, 78 votes against, and 25 abstentions.

The other amendment considered was one proposed by next year’s VP for Grads, Nick Cooper, which tried to mandate NUS delegates to abstain on all BDS motions, as opposed to voting against them. This motion also failed, with more than 100 people voting against it.

Second year Christ Church PPEist Jan Nedvídek, who spoke in support of the motion, was disheartened by the outcome of the vote, telling Cherwell, “I find it disappointing that OUSU failed to back the motion. OUSU and the NUS should be looking after student welfare, not passing motions on controversial geopolitical issues.

“Tonight, OUSU had a chance to say that, but decided not to. I guess it’s business as usual: the NUS pretending it’s the UN Security Council, rather than an institution representing the diverse student body in the UK.”

Barnaby Raine, one of the NUS delegates who would have been affected by the motion, commented, “I was surprised and heartened at the huge margin by which this motion was defeated – as I made clear in the debate before the vote today, I now plan on voting to boycott Israel at NUS conference.”

The Oxford Students’ Arab Cultural Society told Cherwell, “This evening’s vote at OUSU represents a success of student democracy in reflecting the views of the majority of the student body. Oxford students did not want to support a motion which attempted to rush through policy forcing NUS delegates to opposed Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel. Students objected to the undemocratic manner in which the motion was brought, placed on the OUSU council agenda without time for many common rooms to meet and discuss the issue.

“It was evident in the common rooms that were able to discuss the policy that Oxford students are concerned about the situation in Palestine and the role that our university plays. The University of Oxford, through its investments and research programmes, is invested in arms companies and companies that profit from the Israeli occupation.

“The vote tonight makes it clear that Oxford University students want to be able to discuss Israeli human rights abuses in their common rooms, and that our delegates should not be forced to vote against existing NUS policy which supports divestment from companies that profit from the occupation.”

OUSU President Louis Trup told Cherwell, “I respect OUSU Council’s right to mandate NUS delegates to vote in a certain way at the NUS conference. In this instance, they chose not to. I will, however, inform Council in 1st Week of Trinity how individual delegates voted.”

OUSU has announced that it will be launching a new scheme to provide sanitary products such as mooncups, sanitary towels, tampons, and panty liners to common rooms at or below cost price, in the same manner as the existing condom scheme.

The launch of the new scheme has been scheduled to coincide with International Women’s Day on March 8th, and the products will be available to buy through OUSU at the beginning of Trinity.

Women’s, Equalities, and Welfare Officers will now be able to order sanitary products directly through OUSU, in the same way that condoms are currently provided to JCRS. Although many colleges currently do provide subsidised sanitary products, they were previously purchased and reimbursed by college. This will absorb the tax on sanitary products, which is currently five per cent. This tax on sanitary products, which was lowered from the standard rate of VAT in 2000, has recently become a high-profile issue. A Change.org petition asking George Osborne to ‘Stop Taxing Periods. Period.’ has gathered almost 200,000 signatures.

Rachel Besenyei, a second year PPE student at Wadham who worked on rolling out the scheme, commented, “It’s really encouraging that the University are taking positive steps to make sanitary products more affordable for students. These items are necessities, not luxuries, so it seems only fair to make them available in a similar manner to condoms.”

One aspect of the scheme that its organisers are particularly keen to push is the provision of mooncups in all colleges. A mooncup is a small silicone cup used to collect menstrual blood. They can be re-used over many years, making them a much greener and cheaper alternative to traditional sanitary products. On average, a person who menstruates will use 11,000 sanitary items during their lifetime, spending around £90 a year.

Anna Bradshaw, OUSU VP for Women, told Cherwell, “The inclusion of mooncups in the scheme is related both to OUSU’s ongoing commitment to environmental sustainability and to a real demand for them in the student body, as reported to us by Welfare and Women’s Officers in Common Rooms.

“I’m particularly pleased that the University will reduce the cost of mooncups. Whilst incredibly environmentally friendly and more cost-effective than conventional sanitary products, these can be too costly for students to invest in. I hope the scheme encourages more students to see them as a viable (and indeed superior) alternative to disposable sanitary products such as tampons or pads.”

Although mooncups are subsidised in the same manner as other products, the organisers of the scheme also hope that colleges could introduce a system where colleges could provide a limited number of mooncups for free to students on a balloted basis.

Rose Lyddon, Wadham SU Women’s Officer, also welcomed the impact that the new system would have on those who require sanitary products in college. She commented, “The provision of sanitary items at Wadham has made a big difference to students, particularly people with disabilities, for whom getting to the shops is difficult. I’m really happy to see OUSU taking some of the burden off college SUs in funding vital services.”

A serious case review by the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children’s Board (OSCB) has revealed that over 370 children may have been groomed and sexually exploited by gangs of men in the last 15 years in Oxfordshire.

The review into the abuse declared that there were “repeated missed opportunities” to stop years of sexual torture, trafficking, and rape, and that Thames Valley Police and Oxfordshire County Council made “many errors” in that case, although there was “no evidence of any wilful neglect, nor deliberate ignoring of clear signs of child sexual exploitation by groups of men.”

It stated, “The behaviour of the girls was interpreted through eyes and a language which saw them as young adults rather than children, and therefore assumed they had control of their actions. At times, the girls’ accounts were disbelieved or thought to be exaggerated.

“What happened to the girls was not recognised as being as terrible as it was because of a view that saw them as consenting, or bringing problems upon themselves, and the victims were often perceived to be hostile to and dismissive of staff. As a result the girls were sometimes treated without common courtesies, and as one victim described it by ‘snide remarks’.”

This report comes after seven men were convicted in 2013 of 59 counts of offences including rape, trafficking, and arranging or facilitating prostitution, following an inquiry called Operation Bullfinch.

In a statement at the press conference following the publishing of the review, the independent chair of the OSCB, Maggie Blyth, said, “There were repeated missed opportunities and many mistakes were made. The review concludes that the child sexual exploitation across Oxfordshire from 2005-2010 could have been identified or prevented earlier.”

She said the report outlines “an absence of acknowledgement amongst social workers, police officers, health staff and teachers that children were victims of child sexual exploitation by groups of men”.

Blythe coninued, saying, “The use of language by professionals that blamed the children for their plight” was one of the reasons for the delay in action and “systematic failing” in Oxfordshire.

In response to the serious case review, Chief Constable Sara Thornton said in a statement from Thames Valley Police, “We have contributed fully to the review and accept its findings. The independent review highlighted that agencies including Thames Valley Police could have identified the exploitation between 2004 and 2010 earlier than it did and many errors were made. The review acknowledges that we have been willing to learn and change. We have examined what went wrong and we are doing all that we can to put things right.

“We are ashamed of the shortcomings identified in this report and we are determined to do all we can to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. Safeguarding and protecting vulnerable children and robustly and vigorously investigating those who prey on them, is the responsibility of every officer and member of staff in Thames Valley Police.”

Whilst speaking in the House of Commons, Labour MP for Oxford East Andrew Smith called on the government to set up an independent inquiry, insisting that “the 370 other children identified at risk, their families and the public, horrified that these crimes were allowed to continue unchecked for so many years are owed answers to crucial questions which this Serious Case Review could not address.”

Smith told Cherwell, “The public are rightly shocked that no one is really taking responsibility for these awful failures to protect children, and no one has been disciplined.”

Leader of Oxford City Council, Councillor Bob Price, commented, “The crimes inflicted on these young girls over several years were horrific and will have devastating life-long effects on the girls and their parents. This report shows very clearly that the girls were badly let down by the people and organisations that could – and should – have protected them.

“It also shows that concerns raised with the responsible authorities by some City Council staff were not listened to when they were reported. However, we are grateful that their persistence contributed to the recognition by those authorities of what was happening and to effective intervention, which eventually brought the criminals to court.

“The Bullfinch enquiry has led to a series of major changes in reporting and management processes. Now, there is much stronger collaboration and cooperation to make sure children and young people can live their lives in safety and security.

“The City Council has always been fully committed to supporting the County Council and the Thames Valley Police in delivering their responsibilities to protect young people.

“It is good news that since September 2014, the City Council’s role has been recognised and one of our Directors now sits on the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children’s Board.”

St Edmund Hall has closed its gym following an incident which may have caused upwards of £1,000 worth of damage to the college gymnasium.

In an email sent by the MCR President, David Severson, to the MCR body, the reason behind the gym closure was elucidated to students. “College has decided to close the gym for two principle reasons:

“1. The ongoing issues of disregard for gym etiquette with specific reference to weights left scattered, equipment moved out of place without return, and exclusive behaviours such as changing within the gym.

“2. They see that this context provided the climate for a recent incident, whereby one of the newly established radiators installed with the recent renovations to the gym was knocked off the wall.”

The College Welfare Committee held a meeting where the incident, and the context referred to in the first point, were discussed at length. The result of the meeting was that JCR and MCR representatives were informed by the College that over £1,000 worth of damage had been done to the gym, and that the Domestic Bursar had received numerous complaints for etiquette misconduct.

The College Domestic Bursar, Jayne Taylor, and the College Dean, Robert Whittaker, responded to the damage caused by proposing that the gym be closed for one week, beginning Monday 2nd March.

In Severson’s email, the reason for this proposed closure was cited “as an incentive for gym members in our community to hold one another accountable for the behaviour and resulting incident [seen in the College gym recently]”.

Severson continued, “Both the JCR and MCR representatives were not in a real position to ‘combat’ the decision, as it were, given the information that was laid on the table.”

He requested that all gym users “work together to exercise proper gym etiquette, and call each other out when improper behaviour occurs in order to facilitate a more cohesive and comfortable environment in what is a very small space.”

Severson told Cherwell, “I do think the closure was unfortunate, but probably appropriate, as my understanding is that such measures have been implemented by other colleges in response to etiquette issues (the damage to our gym being extra cause) like Wolfson to great effect.”

Wolfson College confirmed that it closed its gym five years ago, but did not specify the precise reason for this closure.

A statement released to Cherwell by Claire Hooper, the Communications Officer for St Edmund Hall, said, “The Gym was closed for operational purposes to complete essential maintenance, and has now reopened.”

The St Edmund Hall JCR President declined Cherwell’s request for comment.

Oxford University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Andrew Hamilton, is the third highest renumerated university adminstrator in the UK, according to a study published by the University and College Union (UCU).

The report, published on Tuesday by UCU, analysed 155 higher education institutes. It found that university leaders enjoyed an average salary of £260,290 in 2013-14. However, 16 per cent of institutions contacted either didn’t respond to the union’s Freedom of Information request or exercised exemptions. Oxford chose to use an exemption over travel and passed on redacted minutes of its renumeration committee.

Nottingham Trent University’s Vice-Chancellor, Neil Gorman, was found to be the highest paid administrator, receiving £623,000, including all accrued bonuses. Andrew Hamilton was ranked third, earning a salary of £442,000. However, once Gorman’s five years of accrued bonuses and pension are stripped out, Hamilton enjoys the highest base salary of any UK Vice-Chancellor. The University did not release the size of Hamilton’s bonus.

A UCU spokesperson told Cherwell, “What concerns us most is the utterly arbitrary nature of pay increases in universities and the complete lack of transparency. Why should one Vice-Chancellor enjoy an inflation-busting double digit pay rise while others secure more modest releases? What we need to see is a far more open system of governance. We want student and staff representatives on the committees that set senior pay in our universities and full disclosure of the minutes of those meetings.”

The study also found that Oxford has 396 employees earning between £100,000 and £399,999. Of these, 274 were in the bracket £100,000 to £149,000 and a further 88 in the £150,000 to £199,999 region. Only UCL employed more high-earning staff, with 429 employees earning in excess of £100,000.

Fergal O’Dwyer, Chairman of the Oxford Living Wage Campaign, commented, “We deal regularly with the University’s lowest paid members of staff, and hear about how difficult it is for them to make ends meet. The disparity in pay, in quality of life, between these workers and those, like Hamilton, on the highest end of the University’s pay scale makes me embarrassed to be an Oxford student.”

Hamilton emerged as the fourth highest spender on air fares of all university Vice-Chancellors. In the year 2013-14, £34,210.71 was spent on flights for the Vice-Chancellor. The University did not provide information on expenditure on Business and First Class flights, nor their proportion in overall expenditure. The average spend on air fares for vice-chancellors was only £9,705.75 and the percentage of overall flight expenditure spent on business and first class flights during 2013/14 was 67.6 per cent.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell that Hamilton’s salary reflects the high standing of the university as the top in the country.

When questioned on the Vice-Chancellor’s air travel, the University responded, “Given that Oxford is one of the great international universities, overseas travel is an important part of the Vice-Chancellor’s role in maintaining the University’s globally competitive position.”