Over 30 Union members have signed a petition calling for a motion of no-confidence in the President.

The motion, which states “This House has no confident in the President, Benjamin Sullivan, Christ Church”, was posted on the Union notice-board on Thursday morning. It comes a week after Sullivan’s arrest by Thames Valley Police on suspicion of rape and attempted rape.

Speaking to Cherwell, Aleksy Gaj, the proposer of the motion said, “I think he should step down due to his recent absences from the Union. I fear that his recent circumstances have left him unable to properly carry out his duties, and the fact that so many committee members have recently resigned stating a toxic atmosphere point towards a Union that has become increasingly chaotic and ungovernable under his watch.”

He continued, “Regardless of the previous media stories regarding Union funds and his arrest, I believe that this issue needs to be brought into the open at the very least — even if we cannot comment on the truth of the allegations that have led to his arrest — I know that it is still highly troubling for many members that someone facing such allegations is in, for example, a position of power of [sic] women. 

“At the very least this should be debated in public by Union members in our tradition of free speech. Though a vote is more of a symbolic gesture, given that this cannot make Ben resign, it is still important that Union members let him know collectively how they feel about him continuing to be President.”

However, Sullivan argues that, due to Rule 47(a)(i)(1) which states that “No Private Business Meeting not recommended by the Standing Committee shall be introduced at a Public Business Meeting unless notice of it has been posted on the notice-board not less than eight days before the meeting”, the debate cannot be held next Thursday, since only seven days will have passed since its posting.

Sullivan commented. “With regards to the No Confidence Motion itself all I can say at this stage is that it will now be held in 5th Week as the proposers did not give the eight days’ notice required by the Rules.”

Proposers of the motion have questioned Sullivan’s position. Speaking in his role as Returning Officer, Josh Atkinson, said “In the rules, any public business motion put forward by a member with 30 signatures can only be debated eight days after its posting on the notice board, since the motion was only put forward this Thursday, the eight days will have not passed so it could not be discussed at the fourth week Thursday debate as asked for in the motion.

“However, Standing Committee has the ability to push forward any motion, including this one and can vote on this on Monday. If they vote as such, the no confidence motion can be debated on Thursday of fourth week”

Atkinson also pointed out that at the debate the President will be unable to defend himself in front of the House. “Due to standing order B5, no member of Standing Committee is able to speak against the motion and thus, if it came to it, the President could not defend himself in a No-Con.”

The Motion of No Confidence comes as Sullivan held his first Union event since his arrest, chairing the weekly Thursday debate. Speaking to the House he said, “I would like to make a very brief statement regarding the recent stories about me. Unfortunately I am not able to give any detailed comment on what is now an ongoing police investigation. As you may be aware no charges have been brought against me and I have the utmost faith in the police and Crown prosecution service and the British legal system as a whole. I know that sooner or later the truth will prevail and justice will be served.”

He continued, “I would like to thank Mayank, President-Elect for organising the debate in my absence and I hope events will not overshadow what I am sure will be an excellent debate that your committee have worked so hard to organise.”

The Thursday debate continued as usual.

Research by an Oxford psychologist, indicates that being a psychopath is often beneficial in high-powered careers such as neurosurgery, the armed forces, and business.

In their new book The Good Psychopath’s Guide to Success, Oxford psychology professor Kevin Dutton and co-author Andy McNab demonstrate that psychopathic characteristics often found in high-level criminals, such as ruthlessness, a lack of emotional empathy and an ability to act on impulse in stressful situations, are actually identical to professional personalities in high-pressure jobs.

Dutton gives an example of an interview he had with a neurosurgeon who described surgery as “a blood sport”. He explained, “If things go wrong in an operating theatre, you don’t want someone to start freaking out and panicking, you want someone to absolutely focus on the job in hand and not get fazed out, and also that kind of dispassionate distance that psychopaths have, that cold empathy that they display.”

Flo Harris, a second-year experimental psychologist, stressed, “It is important to remember that it is a personality disorder and people present on a spectrum. The word ‘psychopath’ doesn’t tell you a lot about what those people might actually be like.”

Dutton defined a psychopath as having, “a distinct cluster of personality traits which include ruthlessness, fearlessness, charm, charisma focus and a lack of conscience”. These traits are all found in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, a psychological assessment used to distinguish psychopaths scored on a scale of 0-40 with 30 and above constituting psychopathy.

In his research, Dutton distinguishes between dysfunctional psychopaths and those that can function within society. He stresses the difference between dysfunctional psychopaths, who are naturally violent, asocial, or unintelligent, and functional psychopaths, who are able to apply themselves to careers and relationships without being a danger to themselves or others. The latter category, Dutton suggests, could succeed in some of the most high-powered, well-paid positions in society.

Balliol JCR passed a motion at a General Meeting held on Sunday to pressure the College to pursue Living Wage accreditation. Balliol College currently pays all of its staff except for students, the Living Wage, including those who are employed through a subcontract. However, it is not an accredited employer. Accreditation would cost Balliol a one-off fee of around £200 pounds, if it has less than 250 staff.

It is believed that no Oxford or Cambridge College is currently an accredited Living Wage employer. It was said in the debate that the point of the motion was to apply political pressure from the JCR to College to formalise their endorsement of the Living Wage Campaign. Living Wage accreditation entitles employers to use the Living Wage employer mark and grants members access to a strategic network of employers that support and promote the Living Wage. Other benefits advertised on the website of the Living Wage Foundations include Living Wage merchandise such as a mug, tote bag, pen and badge.

The motion initially claimed that, in order to gain accreditation, the JCR would have to pay all of its members over 21, including students, the Living Wage. Opposition was expressed to this, on the grounds that an arbitrary increase in wage for half of a year group, based purely on their age would be unfair.

However, it transpired in the debate that paying students over 21 the Living Wage would not be necessary, as the campaign explicitly states that the condition only applies to employees working for two or more hours on any given day for at least eight consecutive weeks.

The motion was amended in any case, so that accreditation would not be pursued, if students employed by the JCR over 21 did have to be paid the Living Wage. The motion approved by the JCR expressed the belief that the Living Wage is a worthy cause that deserves to be championed and that it would be of great symbolic value for an Oxford college to become an accredited Living Wage employer. The motion also mandated the JCR President to lobby college officers, and present a paper to the College Executive, calling for them to seek Living Wage accreditation.

Xavier Cohen, who proposed the motion, told Cherwell, “The important material aspect of the accreditation is that it makes it much harder – politically, that is – for colleges to stop paying the living wage once they have the accreditation.

“Aside from that, accreditation strengthens the institution that is the Living Wage and sets the bar for other colleges to now do the same.”

Balliol JCR President, Daniel Turner, commented, “Balliol has led the University in its commitment to the Living Wage, with the constant support of all three Common Rooms. We hope that the College are prepared to formalise this commitment and send out a message that the Living Wage Campaign is keeping up momentum in Oxford.”

Concern has been expressed over the portrayal of Oxford University in the soon-to-be released film The Riot Club.

Access officers and University officials have suggested that the perception of the University portrayed in the film, which focuses on a fictionalised version of the Bullingdon Club, might discourage prospective applicants from poorer backgrounds, or simply those averse to such an environment.

The film, which stars Max Irons and Sam Clafin, is an adaption of the Laura Wade play Posh. The trailer features lines such as “I am sick to death of poor people!”.

Dr Jamie Castell, Outreach Officer at Hertford College, told Cherwell, “I think such portrayals of Oxford do affect access efforts. This film is obviously fictional, and it is obviously fictional from the trailer, but there is no doubt that they reinforce certain inaccurate stereotypes about this University, in particular class, privilege, money.”

He continued, “The trailer is inacurate in a number of different respects. Not only social background, but the notion that Oxford is the oldest university in the world. We’re not even the oldest university in Western Europe by quite a long way. So it’s clearly going for sensationalism rather than accuracy.”

However, remarking on the elitism of the society portrayed in the movie, Castell commented, “The only nice thing in the trailer was its reference to the fact that there are 20,000 students here, which is some sort of gesture towards the diversity that actually exists. The notion that ‘we’ve got to make ourselves the ten that belong to this club’ does in some way give a sense that the sort of behaviour depicted in this trailer would be rejected by the majority.”

“Most sane people would dislike the particular atmosphere portrayed in the movie”, he added.

The Riot Club trailer has come under fire for depicting decadent lives of wealthy Oxford students.

Similarly, Academic Registrar Dr Matthew Hiscock, who works in access, remarked, “Most audiences will know that this is fantasy and not reality, but it can still put off people who are anxious that they wouldn’t fit in to that environment, or who actively dislike that kind of atmosphere. It’s unhelpful for us.”

A university spokesperson was very positive about the access work done by Oxford, commenting, “We hope prospective students, parents and teachers who watch this fictional programme will realise that this stereotype does not reflect the vast majority of Oxford students. We do an enormous amount of access work, spending more than £5.5 million per year and holding more than 2,200 outreach events to encourage students from all backgrounds to apply to Oxford. This work has led to one in ten UK students who were admitted to Oxford in 2013 being from a household income background of less than £16,000 per year.”

One undergraduate, however, was more positive about the film, commenting, “I’m actually quite excited to see it. Most people will realise that it’s fictional. That said, I can see how it undermines access work.”

When contacted by Cherwell, Universal Studios was unavailable for comment on the trailer.