Current plans include the demolition of all Oxpens buildings to make way for residential properties and business offices. Originally, the council had suggested the ice rink could be included within the buildings removed to make way for the development. The suggested replacement plan was a retirement home, due to its convenient location for such a facility.

However, despite public concern over the future of the ice rink during a recent city council consultation, the council has concluded the facility will not be removed during its building lifetime.

City councillor Colin Cook, executive city board member for city development, commented, “I don’t know what the lifespan of the building is, but we have got no plans to replace it. When the master plan was released it clearly set hares running and we are trying to stop that. Clearly, when the opportunity presents itself, we might be able to replace it but that is in the long, long term.”

The popularity of the ice rink is clear with recent figures highlighting it being Oxford’s second most popular leisure centre with 209,860 visits in 2012/2013.

Richard Carpenter, secretary of Oxford City Stars ice hockey club, “It is extremely positive news that this has been agreed and the future of the ice rink is secure.

“It is a crucial facility for the city to have. Ice skating is great exercise because it takes a lot of stamina.”

Oxford students also welcomed the news, among them a number of ALTS players. One first year student told Cherwell, “I really enjoy playing ALTS and am keen to learn more about the game and to play it at a higher level. I am glad the centre will remain open to allow me to do this. The disco themed skating nights are also incredibly popular amongst many of us a social activity, so this facility really is a crucial part of Oxford student life.”

Daniel Johnson, an ALTS enthusiast commented, “The news that the Oxford ice rink will be retained is a great load off my mind. Alts, which takes place at the rink, is a great way for students to chill out while still playing a sport.”

As Ball President Ross Thomson explained, “New College requests, as one of the conditions of the Ball taking place, that the committee donates money to charity on behalf of the three Fellows who have supported it throughout the year…One Fellow decided that he would like his donation to go to the JCR, and asked the JCR President to canvas opinion as to a specific project to spend the money on.”

It would appear that confusion ensued thereon as some of the suggestions put forward by JCR members were either purposefully amusing, a “water slide option” starting off the debate, or seen to only benefit a few students, such as a suggestion to use the money to create a “band room”.

Many also expressed frustration that the spending of the £600 was being controlled by the fellow who had donated it. Furthermore, others questioned why three fellows were given £1000 each to donate to charity instead of that money being reinvested in next year’s ball, especially considering that ball tickets last year cost £170.

Despite such confusions it would appear the problem as now been solved. As Kath Nicholls summed up the issues and the resolution:  “The JCR is very grateful for the donation, as extra funds for JCR projects can only be a good thing. My aim was that everyone had a fair say in how the money was spent.

“A few people were concerned that the projects in the original poll, taken as suggestions from JCR members, were not adequate so a new poll is now running with the additional option to put the money straight into the JCR budget, rather than opting for one of the projects, such as redeveloping the band room. Interestingly, only a small minority (13 out of 142 so far) have voted to put the money straight into the budget in place of it going towards one of the projects.”

If anything, this story highlights how easily issues can get muddled when blown up on Freshers’ pages, as Honoria Connelly, a second year at New, put it “It’s not really a story, more of a facebook thread”.

Students of the college have been found by night-porters to be able to access the scaffolding from their rooms, without setting off the alarms on the lowest level of the construction.

These alarms are in place to stop poeple gaining access to the college buildings from the street. However, the college has organised for the rest of the scaffolding to be alarmed so that anyone attempting to mount the scaffolding from higher up will trigger the alarm and summon a porter.

The email from Douglas Dupree states that, “Once the alarm is in place the College will have to react seriously to anyone who violates this notice (and consider this email as due notice) that the scaffolding is OFF LIMITS. So be warned, for your own safety sake. Stay off the scaffolding. It is dangerous.”

However, a lot of students are annoyed about the presence of the scaffolding, which is causing much inconvenience to those living in the building. A third-year at Balliol who declined to be named said, “We were told there would be issues with light and noise (which are actually worse than was stated), but nobody warned me that I would open my curtains and frequently have several men see me in my underwear. I have to decide between feeling comfortable in my room or having the curtains open and being able to actually see what I’m doing.”

St Antony’s annual HalloQueen bop has attracted criticism from its own LGBTQA community, provoking allegations about anti-sexual assault awareness.

Last week, St. Antony’s LGBTQA and Men’s Officer hosted Queer Pride/Queer Rage, a festival of discussion panels, films, and lectures on LGBTQ issues. The event fell the week before HalloQueen, a popular drag-themed bop that took place on Saturday 2nd November.

In a welcome speech on the first night of Queer Pride/Queer Rage, the LGBTQA officer stated, “Queer Pride/Queer Rage started as a response to HalloQueen, as a protest to the lack of organizing initiative to include trans voices, as a resistance to the gender binary that the event enforces, and a party that rides of the back of queer history without acknowledge or respecting this history.”

He cited transgender people and those who do not identify as male or female as potential targets of discrimination or harassment at a drag-related event organised for the student body as a whole.

He alleged that the HalloQueen student organisers and the St Antony’s GCR executive avoided consulting him or the LGBT Society in the planning of an event related to issues that face the LGBTQ community. He emphasised the need for inclusivity, and stressed that he felt St Antony’s was too focused on planning the party to address LGBTQ concerns.

“Queerphobia and transphobia is not question about logistics, but a question of survival,” the LGBTQA Officer said. He added that he did not attend the bop last year, finding it upsetting and unrepresentative of his community.

According to its corresponding Facebook event, over two hundred people attended Queer Pride/Queer Rage. Discussions ranged from the history of queer sexuality to BDSM, featuring speakers including artists, sex workers, Oxford academics, filmmakers, and activists.

At HalloQueen, there was one instance of sexual harassment, which resulted in the perpetrator being ejected from the bop. The college recently introduced a Safer Spaces policy that condemns sexual harassment, including that related to sex and sexual orientation.

GCR President Emma Lecavalier stated that this process had been delayed for several months by the St Antony’s VP Welfare position being vacant, but that the college ensured the Safer Spaces policy was in place for this year’s HalloQueen.

As part of the Safer Spaces initiative, Lecavalier told Cherwell that five members of a Welfare Team were on duty at HalloQueen this year to patrol for harassment and assist partygoers who felt unsafe.

She said, “We are very proud of the work that everyone did for this bop ensuring the indiscriminate safety of every single person present at the bop. Some of the volunteers even went so far as to accompany people home, call their parents, wake up wardens, and take other measures to ensure their complete safe return home.”

A former St Antony’s student who has attended HalloQueen the past two years stated, “On Halloween, we traditionally dress up as monsters. It’s therefore possible that people would interpret HalloQueen as trivialising trans issues. But it’s never felt like an unsafe environment to me.”

On Friday 25 October, the college hosted the ‘Great Pink College Bake Off’ as part of a coffee morning in the Monson Room. There were three competition categories: best dressed, best cake and ‘guess the number of sweets in the jar.’ The event managed to raise £422.29 for Breast Cancer Campaign and occurred as part of a ‘Wear It Pink Day’ campaign.

‘Wear It Pink Day’ is a nationwide charity initiative to raise money for Breast Cancer Research where people dress in pink and host fundraising events.

Sammi Rosser, who came second in the baking competition, said, “The atmosphere at the event was lovely with students and staff coming together to have a cuppa and ogle the amazing spread of pink puds.”

A particularly fortunate member of staff was Elaine Kemp, the ICY Technical Services Officer, who won the competition to guess the number of sweets in the jar. She told Cherwell, “My teenage children were very impressed that I won the ‘guess the number of sweets in the jar competition… the sweets disappeared very fast!”

The Vice President of the Lady Margaret Hall JCR said that the strength of the event lay in getting MCR and college staff involved as well as students.

The success of the event fits perfectly with the college motto ‘I always remember my duty’ as well as the college values of community, fairness and equality. Indeed LMH’s celebration of ‘Wear It Pink Day’ fits more broadly into their wider charity initiative.

The HR manager Jenni Collins, who organizes charitable events at the college, said, “In practical terms this means LMH piggy-backing on local and national charity days by holding events in the College such as coffee morning, cake sales and quizzes.”

Jenni explained how she asks the students at the college what sort of events they would like to host in order to raise money for good causes. With people reporting that the cakes were absolutely delicious, Jenni pointed out that, “Including an element of personal incentive is important for any charity initiative in the workplace.”

A researcher from the University of Oxford has been awarded £50,000 in prize money for his work on a device that uses the revolutionary technology of augmented reality to help blind people ‘see.’

Dr Stephen Hicks, a research associate at the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, has been working on the ‘smart-glasses’ and other related technologies for the past five years.  

The Royal Society recently bestowed on him the 2013 Brian Mercer Award for Innovation, which is designed to bridge the funding gap between scientific research and venture capital investment.

When completed, the device will use two miniscule cameras, an infrared projector and advanced computer software to recognise nearby objects and project them onto the lenses. The lenses then act like a personalised movie-screen for the wearer, who can see a ‘highlight-reel’ of objects in front of them.

Speaking to Cherwell, Dr Hicks said, “This is the beginning of a golden-age for computerised vision. We are seeing smart recognition technology in everything from cameras to smartphones to self-driving cars. It’s entirely possible that at some point in the future this technology could be improved to the point where severely vision impaired individuals would be able to read signs or even large-print books.”

A spokesperson for the Royal Society said, “Dr Hicks’ work is truly inspirational; his invention has the potential to transform the lives of many and he is a worthy recipient of the Brian Mercer Award.”

One third-year Hertford biologist said, “This truly is an exciting time to be alive.”

Eight bottles of cava were stolen from a St Hugh’s charity event last Friday.
The bottles, which were meant to be used for the champagne reception of their RAG ball, had been stored in the JCR committee room, which was left unlocked.

Charities and Communities rep, Amy Ertan, who organised the event, told Cherwell, “It is very unfortunate that our champagne was stolen, and we hope to recover the lost cava soon. However it should not be forgotten that in spite of this, the Casino Royale Ball was a roaring success and this should not detract from that.”

One St Hugh’s student, Rebecca Davies, told Cherwell, “I think that the whole committee was shocked by what happened, because the bottles were taken from the JCR committee room, where nobody would really expect for them to be stored.”

Another student agreed, stating, “I think this is pretty low, especially considering that the bottles which were stolen were meant to be for a champagne reception for the St Hugh’s RAG ball, so whoever stole them were effectively stealing from a charitable cause.”

In other news, St Hugh’s has enforced a blanket ban on students bringing their own bottle to formal, following an incident last Tuesday where an unnamed individual vomited in hall. The college has offered to supply wine at a price of around £8, and a cheaper option between £6.50 and £7.

A statement from the St Hugh’s JCR committee said, “I would like to point out that this is not an ideal situation, and the response to this problem is not one that I, or the rest of the JCR committee, agree with. We are hoping that this change of policy can be reviewed in the near future, and we can come to a more agreeable solution for all, but for now this is the only option.”

A number of St Hugh’s students have expressed their discontent at the new measures. One third year commented, “I don’t feel its entirely fair. College authorities seem to have taken this action in response to one incident of vomit following formal this term, and one other in Trinity. These are isolated incidents, in my opinion.”

Another St Hugh’s undergraduate said, “I think this goes against a tradition at St Hugh’s of being laid back and informal. We don’t wear gowns to formal, and we can walk on the grass in the gardens, I don’t see why we should scrap BYOB if the vast majority of people play by the rules.”

All JCR motions at Corpus Christi will from now on have to have an identified proposer and seconder, as it was felt that anonymous motions were redundant and potentially harmful.

At last week’s JCR meeting, a motion was proposed to make anonymous motions easier to submit.

This drew clear opposition and an amendment was drawn up proposing the abolition of anonymous motions altogether. This amendment passed unopposed and a full proposal was written.

The new proposal read that “anonymous motions were recently introduced into the JCR Constitution and they have had limited use”. Worries that anonymous motions could be undemocratic were the driving force behind the proposal. It was feared that an anonymous motion could allow someone who was not a member of the Corpus JCR body to submit any kind of motion, leaving members only to trust that it came from someone within the JCR. Amendments proposed to any such anonymous motions would also have to be relied upon to be friendly.

Anonymous motions had been used only once since their introduction. It was felt that the potential harm they could cause outweighed their benefits.
One of the obvious advantages of an anonymous JCR motion would be that, in the case of a sensitive issue, a motion could be submitted without the proposer’s identity being revealed.

However, it was raised at the meeting that there were ways around this problem. As Corpus JCR Vice-President Harry Begg pointed out, “There are still other vehicles with which people are able to put forward motions, for example through our welfare team who could act as proxy proposers and seconders.”

Begg also said that he hoped that anyone who felt passionate enough to propose a motion, would feel secure enough to publicly support it, if only by proxy telling Cherwell, “I would question if there could ever be a motion which would find support in the JCR where the person proposing was not comfortable appearing in public to support the spirit and content of that proposition.”

Gayatri Parthasarathy and Abigail Burman, the proposer and seconder, were unavailable for comment.

Although there were no objections, JCR member Nam Phuong Dinh had some misgivings about an outright ban, “I didn’t object to the motion at the meeting but I feel uneasy somehow. However, it seems like abolishing anonymous motions would get rid of more problems than it would create harm. Basically, I can’t think of why not.”

Plans for the construction of a divisive new £75m building in the heart of Jericho are now well and truly under way after the bid by David Freud, the owner of Freud bar on Walton street, to halt the project was rejected by a judicial review.

Despite Mr Freud’s claims that the project breached planning rules, the decision to approve the Blavatnik School of Government building was passed on the 15th of August by Mr Justice Ouseley.

The controversy was partly caused by the building’s design. The plans of Swiss architects Herzog & De Meuron, who also designed the Tate Modern, show the structure as 22.5m-high, which would rise above a number of the city’s historic buildings. This, however, goes contrary to the council’s guideline that no building within 1,200m of Carfax is able to be taller than 18.2m.

This objection was declared void by Mr Justice Ouseley, who ruled that the authorities were free to disregard aspects of policies in suitable circumstances.
In previous comments Mr Freud has made it clear that he is of the opinion that the Oxford skyline is a “heritage asset” and that he was opposed to it being filled with a “drum full of light.”

The other issue raised by Mr Freud was that there may be members of the councils deciding body for whom private interests have swayed their decision. On this point also Mr Justice Ouseley was strongly opposed. Writing in his reasons for rejection he says, “There is no evidence that any of the councillors had disclosable pecuniary interests and that there is “no evidence of any unfairness in the conduct of committee.”

One of the councillors on the committee, Colin Cook, who is also chief technician at the university’s medical sciences’ teaching centre told Cherwell, “After the initial refusal of permission for judicial review on the basis of the written representations, I was not surprised that the decision at the subsequent hearing remained the same.”

On the building’s controversial design he commented “I believe it will be a positive addition to the eclectic mix of architectural styles in the city.”
The approval of planning has also come as a great relief to the Blavatnik School of Government, which is part of the University of Oxford, and was founded with a £75m donation from American billionaire Leonard Blavatnik.

A spokeswoman from the Blavatnik School of Government commented, “We are very pleased that the judge has upheld the planning committee’s decision to give approval for our building. We are excited about our prospective move to Walton Street in autumn 2015, and look forward to continued engagement with the local community as our building work progresses.

“As the new home for the Blavatnik School, this building will be an exciting space in which students, researchers, policy makers and visitors can exchange knowledge and ideas on how to make public policy better and improve the quality of government around the world. At any given time, the building will accommodate up to 550 people.

“With a dynamic programme of events, conferences and seminars, many of which will convene experts from all sectors of society and be open to students across Oxford and the general public, it will be a space that invites engagement with the wider world, as well as the local community.”

No one from Freud was available to comment.

The new gowns, which are only to be worn by holders of an Undergraduate Master’s degree and at their graduation ceremony – but not by those currently studying – are to be comparable to graduate Master’s gowns. They will consist of a laced gown of the same pattern as the MSt type, and a silk hood lined with sand fabric in the same shape as the MA hood.

Senior Proctor Professor Jonathan Mallinson told Cherwell, “Undergraduate Master’s degree courses include a fourth year of study which is closer to that of Masters’ level work; it is therefore appropriate that the gown should be distinguished from the ordinary BA gown”.

He continued, “The design of the gown echoes that of the MSt which is perhaps the nearest equivalent to the final level of the undergraduate Masters.”

The decision to adopt the new gowns, announced last Thursday, came after the vice-chancellor and proctors agreed upon the new design. The new arrangements will come into effect in January 2014, and will apply to holders of the MBiochem, MChem, MCompSci, MEarthSci, MMaths and MPhys degrees, as well as joint subject equivalents, and future degrees of the same status.

One exasperated MPhys student told Cherwell, “I thought this would be something like a Scholars’ gown. That’s disappointing to say the least”.

However, one Hertford chemist said, “I am glad that the extra year of study on our Masters course will be recognised in this way. It’s nice that the extra work that we will do is going to be acknowledged, even if we won’t be getting new gowns to wear around college”.