Oxford University’s libraries accrued almost £130,000 in library fines last year.

Universities across the country amassed fines totalling £50 million, While Oxford’s takings are significantly more than that of universities such as Imperial College London, who collected just £26,703, they remain some way off the £1.8m amassed by the University of Leeds.

When asked how the money is spent, a spokesperson for the Bodleian Libraries explained, “The money goes into the general library income stream,” adding, “It remains within the libraries but is not directly allocated to any particular purpose.”

The Bodleian’s standardised fining service charges 20p per day for standard overdue loans, £1 per day for short loans and 50p per hour for overnight loans. Students with debts exceeding £10 may not borrow again until the debt is cleared.

The findings also revealed that Oxford has the second highest number of missing books across all UK universities, with a total of 20,923 books currently unaccounted for.

Mike Heaney, Executive Secretary of the Bodleian libraries, defended the number of missing books, explaining, “Oxford appears among the top simply because the overall numbers of items in the libraries is so huge (13 million).’ He said, “The figure represents 0.15% of stock (i.e. 99.85% is present and correct).

“Oxford is in the good position of having most of its stock recorded in the online catalogue and so the status (on shelf, missing etc.) is known.’ He added that most books classed as “missing” were not in fact stolen or unreturned, but instead “simply misplaced on the shelves.”

Hannah Cusworth, the OUSU Vice President and Access and Academic Affairs Officer, praised the figures, stating, “Oxford’s libraries are fantastic and as the figures provided by the Bod show we’re doing well compared to other universities, both in terms of the sheer number of books we have and the rate that are missing.” In response to the statistics regarding fines, she argued that, “Library fines are annoying but they encourage people to return books on time and [anyone] who has ever searched across Oxford to find that key book for an essay knows how important that is.”

First year, Roseanna Allnut, suggested that “only persistent offenders should be fined”, and that the Bodleian should consider offering a “pizza delivery service straight to library desks” in order to increase studying in their libraries.

LMH will next week play host to the first UK screening of new film Salmon Fishing
in the Yemen, starring Ewan McGregor, in aid of Oxford based charity Refugee Resource.

Based on a book by Paul Torday, the film stars Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt. The narrative centres around a fisheries expert who is approached to help realise a sheik’s dream of bringing the sport of fly-fishing to the desert.

The film is set for general release in March, before which a star-studded London premiere will take place, but this event will be the first time it will actually be shown in the UK. There are scheduled to be two screenings followed by question-and-answer sessions with the writer, Simon Beaufoy, with proceeds from tickets going to Refugee Resource.

The charity works with refugees coming newly to the UK, often pairing them with a mentor, and aims to “improve well-being and facilitate the integration of refugees and asylum seekers — mainly in Oxfordshire — by providing practical, social and psychological support.”

Slumdog Millionaire writer Mr. Beaufoy, a graduate of Oxford University and resident of Jericho, expressed his attachment to the charity to the Oxford Mail saying the charity did “incredibly important work providing people who arrive from all over the world with support.” After hearing that the charity was low on funding, Mr. Beaufoy decided to show his support by way of the charity screening, for which tickets will be sold for £30-50.

Sue Snelders of Refugee Resource said that it was “amazing” that this would be first time the film was shown in the UK and that it was “very generous” of Simon Beaufoy.

Neither Mr. Beaufoy nor the charity revealed whether there would be any celebrities at the event. Ms. Snelders revealed that “we may have to put on some security for guests on the night,” however Franc Strazzeri of Mr. Beaufoy’s agency told Cherwell that “it is not a première, so it is unlikely, in my opinion that there will be any of the talent there.” He added however that he could not comment with any certainty.

Refugee Resource would not comment on the event to Cherwell directly because they had not been cleared to do so by LMH. The screenings will involve one matinee and one black tie evening event on the 15th January.

Robin McGhee, Liberal Democrat and history student at St Anne’s, has announced his candidacy for Oxford City Council.

McGhee said, “We ought to be better treated in a city whose reputation and excellence rests on the university and its students. As an Oxford undergraduate myself, I understand what matters to Oxford students.”

Elections will take place in May, when 24 of 48 council seats will come up for re-election. The council is currently controlled by Labour, with the Lib Dems in second place.

Fellow Lib Dem Duncan Stott, a recent graduate from the University of York, will be standing in the Carfax ward, and will be campaigning against the council’s proposals to limit the number of shared houses available in Oxford.

As well as promising to conduct his campaign with “fizzing enthusiasm” and “veritaserumic honesty”, and to pay more attention to student housing needs, McGhee will run on an anti-tuition fees ticket, in contrast to the Lib Dem leadership. He told Cherwell, “I believe that university education is a right open to anyone good enough, and that we should not have to pay through the nose while the very existence of the tutorial system is under question.”

Finalist Steven Wenham expressed doubt regarding the influence of local councillors, saying they “are in no position to set government or university policy.” Hertford student Rhys Owens added, “Anti-tuition fees is a completely unrealistic ticket to run on, at the moment tuition fees are a necessary fact of life, and that’s not altogether a bad thing.”

Ben Hudson, of Regent’s Park, commented, “His attempt should be seen as a publicity stunt to show the legitimacy of free education as a reasoned and reasonable option, rather than a genuine attempt to make a reformist grab at power.”

It is not without precedent for students to stand for local elections: one of the existing councillors for Holywell, Mark Mills, was elected to the position while studying at Teddy Hall in 2008.

McGhee is confident that being a councillor would not affect his studies. “I’d be a postgrad, and like all postgrads I’d use the rest of my time to wallow in my chaste and debt-ridden misery.”

The election of Oxford University Labour Club’s Trinity co-chairs was decided by a coin-toss after both sets of candidates recorded equal votes. Anthony Breach and Kevin Feeney, having tied with Tom Rutland and Sarah Coombes, eventually triumphed in the coin toss.

The surprising decision came after Jack Evans, the Returning Officer, and Cllr Scott Seamons had counted the votes multiple times to be certain that it was a dead heat. This was the first tie in the election of co-chairs in OULC’s near-100 year history, and given the lack of precedent, they turned to Eleanor Brown, the ‘functioning expert on the OULC Constitution’ to seek a solution. The Constitution provided for a run-off election at ‘the earliest possible opportunity’. However, as a mutually acceptable date for a re-election could not be agreed on, they decided to use a coin toss.  

Rutland and Coombes, who lost out in the toss, commented, ‘We think changes should be made to prevent similar occurrences’.

New co-chair, Kevin Feeney praised the way the situation was dealt with, saying he thought that ‘OULC handled a really difficult issue extremely well, to the credit of our Chair, Returning Officer, and candidates on all sides- as well as the membership as a whole’.

His co-chair elect, Anthony Breach, stressed the importance of defusing potential tensions, explaining, ‘the coin toss method was deliberately chosen so as to minimise the chance of ill-feeling amongst members, and it has been wholly successful in doing that’.

Feeney added that he felt confident ‘that OULC is now united and ready to move forwards to the Oxford City Council Elections’.  

The two unlucky losers in this situation did agree that ‘it was the fairest thing to do’ but said they found it ‘regrettable that the outcome of the election was decided just by luck rather than any substantive differences between the candidates’.

Newly released papers have revealed that former Oxford Professor J.R.R. Tolkein was considered for the Nobel prize for Literature, but rejected as not worthy of such an award.

Tolkein was nominated for the award by his friend and fellow professor C.S. Lewis, and made the shortlist of 50 authors. However the prize jury are recorded as remarking that Tolkein’s prose did “not in any way measure up to storytelling of the highest quality.”

Former Oxford student Graham Greene was also eventually rejected by the jury, whilst the “advanced years” of Robert Frost and E.M. Forster prevented them from being recognised. Referring to Frost, the jury declared that his age was “a fundamental obstacle which the committee regretfully found it necessary to state.”

The award was eventually presented to Yugoslavian writer Ivo Andric. The panel praised him for “the epic force with which he has traced themes and depicted human destinies drawn from the history of his country.”

Oxford student Andrea Jansson responded to the dismissal of Tolkein’s  writing credentials in support of the Nobel jury. She told Cherwell, “It wasn’t his prose that was good, it was his ideas.”

However Brasenose second year Amy Rollason responded, “His work is loved by many, and I don’t think the Nobel snub is necessarily representative.” She went on, “What could admittedly be seen as tedium and overwriting on Tolkein’s part, seems to me to be a deep devotion to the world he created, and story he wanted to tell.”

Fellow Brasenose student Claire Cornish added, “I don’t really know anything about Tolkein’s writing. But for what it’s worth, I strongly believe that anyone whose work brought together Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom and that hot Rohan guy in one film, deserves the highest accolades that society can offer.”

The considerations of the Nobel committee remain secret until fifty years after the award is made.

An email from an Oxford Law applicant has sparked further debate on the University admissions process after becoming a minor internet hit.

Elly Nowell, a former student at Brockenhurst College, emailed the Magdalen Admissions office and Law Faculty shortly after her interview explaining that she would be withdrawing her application to the University with immediate effect.

She stated, ‘I realise you may be disappointed by this decision, but you were in competition with many fantastic universities and following your interview I’m afraid you do not quite meet the standard of the universities I will be considering. I encourage you to try again for my LLM [Master of Laws], but re-applicants are at a disadvantage and you are unlikely to succeed unless you become a more progressive university. I hope you will be successful in finding other capable candidates.’

Nowell finished the email with four attacks on the Oxford admissions system, the first of which asserted that Magdalen’s ‘grand formal setting’ were a put-off for state-school pupils. She then suggested that Oxford’s rituals and traditions ‘reflect badly’ on the university, and that ‘teaching … students to blindly and illogically do whatever they are told reveals significant flaws in your education system’. She also claimed that the ‘obvious gap between minorities and white middle-class students was embarrassing’. She did not elaborate on what ‘gap’ she was referring to. Her fourth and final criticism concluded that not offering interviewees a glass of water amounted to ‘torture’.

When asked by Cherwell to comment on the story, Christy Rush, a second year Law student at Magdalen, said ‘The banter of the email is sadly spoiled by the cynicism and agenda displayed at the end. Magdalen can hardly be expected to knock down its beautiful buildings in order to ensure no-one gets ‘intimidated’ – anyway, as it happens Magdalen has a really diverse intake, both in terms of race and education. I find it very difficult to believe someone actually turned down a place at Oxford just to be self-righteous. Frankly the whole thing sounds like a pathetic publicity stunt.’

The University Press office was equally unimpressed by Nowell’s comments. In a statement, a spokesman for the University stated ‘of the seven UK students who received offers for Law and joint school courses at Magdalen, only one was from an independent school’. Between the years 2005 and 2007, Magdalen accepted a lower percentage of independent school candidates than sixteen other colleges.

A first year student, who preferred to remain anonymous, said ‘I can understand where she was coming from, but still think it’s a bit of a blunder’.

Nowell’s tirade attracted a number of comments after being posted on discussion website The Student Room. One contributor, who could only be identified as ‘dudeydan’, remarked simply, ‘your friend is a moron and will regret this for years to come’.

On social news site Reddit, a more sympathetic member, ‘KingJol’, wrote ‘I should do that when I apply to Harvard’.

Nowell was unavailable for comment, but early reports indicate her favoured choice of University is now UCL, another member of the Russell Group.

Living without alcohol may not be an alluring prospect, but that is just one of the New Year’s resolutions made by Oxford students in aid of the Giving What We Can New Year Pledge.

Giving What We Can (GWWC), founded in November 2009, is an organisation dedicated to poverty relief. One factor that distinguishes it from other such organisations is the special emphasis it places on the cost-effectiveness of the charities it supports. That, says GWWC, can make the difference between “saving a single life and saving a life every day”.

GWWC usually raises money through members who pledge 10% of their income to specific charities. But with its New Year campaign, Pledge 2012, the organisation’s Oxford chapter is focussing on those who don’t earn a wage. Instead, it’s encouraging students to forgo some of life’s luxuries, and to donate the money saved to charity.

Although the campaign is barely a week old, support has already been encouraging. The pledge to avoid alcohol has been particularly popular, with almost half of those supporting the Oxford campaign choosing that option. Others are giving up bottled water, snacks between meals and even hair conditioner.

One of the Oxford chapter’s founding supporters, Rossa O’Keeffe-O’Donovan of Balliol College, took a “dry run”, giving up drinking for the month of November. After saving about £100, he took the decision to do without alcohol for six months: “When I sat down and figured out how much I have spent on alcohol in my life, and how much good that money could do if given to the right charities, I thought, ‘Why not?’. Friends were surprisingly supportive — the football team let me take initiations with milk — although that wasn’t overly pleasant”.

The most generous pledge so far has come from an unnamed student and lifelong Liverpool FC fan, who has given up his season ticket, a sacrifice worth £850 over the course of the year. According to the GWWC website, this pledge alone could save three lives, put 89 children through secondary school or prevent 445 years’ worth of ill health in some of the world’s most deprived areas. Overall, organisers are hoping to raise £9,600 in the coming year.

Robert Gledhill, president of the Organisation’s Oxford chapter, says that though the money raised by student pledges is vital, there’s more to the campaign than that. It’s about choosing charities that make intelligent choices about the way they spend donations. “It’s really important for people to know how much more effective some charities are than others”, he says “and something that I’d never really considered it until somebody explained it to me”. “By asking questions about how much disease and disability affect quality of life, we can assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of intervention. So, some charities will restore sight by removing cataracts very cheaply, for example, or a charity may help prevent malaria, or eliminate tropical parasites”.

Julian Savulescu, Director of Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, is a keen supporter of the campaign: “GWWC deal with an important problem by providing a well-articulated, rational solution”, he says. “It’s great to support such smart and idealistic young people, who may well make a difference for the better”.