A fault in the IT system at The Queen’s College has led to widespread confusion among students over how much they are expected to pay on their battels for college meals.

A number of students were faced with an unpleasant shock last week, as their charges for Michaelmas Term were considerably higher than expected.

According to one student, “the IT office seems to have made a mess of a significant number of students’ battels”.

Those who reported that they had been overcharged were initially assured by the college that they would be refunded, but further controversy arose when a subsequent email was sent out from the bursary, telling students that these refunds were now being withdrawn.

This was on the grounds that the error had occurred because the computer system had charged students for meals for the last six weeks of Michaelmas up until 31st January, having not charged these meals to the previous battels.

Benjamin Willis, one of the students who was initially promised a refund, told Cherwell that frustration among JCR members is widespread.

Willis also described the treatment he received as “completely incompetent”, revealing that the college’s Academic Administrator had sent an email to all students about the mix up, but had inadvertently attached the private correspondence between him and a member of the college office.

Queen’s JCR passed a motion last Sunday that would allow students to monitor their battels online.

The Queen’s College bursary declined to comment on the affair.

Oxford has stood against the latest government proposals on university admissions this week, with many students and tutors expressing outrage.

Under the plans, top universities could be allowed to introduce extra places for those prepared to pay higher fees.

Candidates would still have to meet the course entry requirements; however those who take up the places may be charged as much as international undergraduates.

At top universities these fees range from £12,000 a year for arts subjects to £18,000 for science courses, and more than £28,000 for medicine.

Students who take up the extra places would not be eligible for publicly funded loans to pay tuition fees or living costs, limiting this option to all but the wealthiest.

On Wednesday afternoon, Oxford academics and students assembled at the “parliament of dons” to lead the fightback against the proposals.

Students from OUSU and college JCRs called on the university to go one step further and pass a vote of no confidence in Universities Minister David Willetts at the next Congregation meeting.

Willetts has however been forced to clarify the proposals, issuing a statement that emphasised that any plans would have to “pass the test of improving social mobility”.

Despite this, some members of Congregation believe that the vote would be a good way to signal Oxford’s intent to take a firm stand.

The call was picked up by a number of academics, and is now subject to detailed talks between student leaders and those academics likely to propose such a motion.

%%VIDEO%%http://blip.tv/play/gTOCvO0SAA%%

Ministers have argued that the introduction of extra places will boost social mobility by freeing up more publicly subsidised places for teenagers from poorer homes.

However, critics of the scheme see it as a chance for universities to “auction off places” to the rich.

John Parrington, a tutor at Worcester strongly opposed to the higher education cuts, said, “the government’s latest proposals betray what I think is their ultimate agenda, that is, the privatisation of our universities.

“I think that they show that this government is perfectly happy for rich students to be able to bypass the normal procedures of entry into top universities.”

OUSU President David Barclay, who also attended Wednesday’s meeting, has said that, “allowing the richest students to buy places at our top universities would be a disaster for social mobility, entrenching the idea that economic means entitles you to privileged access to top education.”

When asked for their opinions, Oxford undergraduates had mixed reactions.

One first year student said, “I am shocked to hear of such a scheme. Money should not be of any advantage for any type of university place.

“It is a step back in history meaning that Oxford would once again belong to the privileged.”

However, another student remarked “not that I support this move at all, but it is what has been going on for a while in some universities that admit a large quota of students from outside Europe, who then have to pay very high fees.

“Not that they don’t deserve their places but, just as within the UK, they are no more entitled to them than people who can’t pay.”

A spokesperson for Oxford University has issued a statement saying,

“Admission to Oxford is, and will remain, based solely on academic merit.”

“As well as being committed to a merit-based admissions policy, Oxford could not just ‘take in more students’… A collegiate university system like Oxford’s is limited in the number of students it can take.”

The controversy comes as the government announced that it is launching a new information initiative designed to enlighten students about the changes to the student finance system in 2012.

NUS President Aaron Porter described the move as a welcome one, but condemned the information as “inaccurate and potentially confusing”.

Andris Rudzitis, a Pembroke first year, agreed that the campaign is not sufficiently clear.

He added, “How can the government be running a public information campaign when… it’s still unsure exactly what financial help students are going to receive?

“And now with disorder stirring regarding the alleged allocation of places to privately funded students, you can’t expect the prospective student to feel anything but confusion and doubt as to what choices they have financially.”

However, OUCA member and Corpus Christi student, Henry Evans, said, “I’d say that there can hardly be too much information about support of this kind, especially for those who need it, but as far as I’m aware the information is out there and easily available for those who want it”.

The campaign also reveals that taking out a student loan will affect a graduate’s ability to borrow money from the bank in later life.

Porter commented, “Despite repeated assertions that taking out a student loan will not affect a graduate’s ability to get a mortgage, the Government has finally admitted that repayments can affect lenders’ decisions”.

Willetts said, “We must ensure that prospective students are not put off applying to university because they do not understand the new system.”

On Monday night OUSU Women’s Campaign hosted an event at Merton addressing the work of the Orchid Project and Daughters of Eve, two organizations dedicated to ending the practice of female genital cutting (FGC).

Speaking in the main lecture hall of Merton College, the speakers threw a spotlight on what Julia Lalla-Maharajh of the Orchid Project called a “terribly under-resourced” cause — the abolition of FGC.

FGC is the practice of cutting any portion of a girl’s clitoris. The custom is a social norm in many communities across Africa, the Middle East and Asia, as well as the diaspora of such communities in Europe and the United States.

Human rights, women’s rights, and children’s rights groups unanimously condemn the practice.

Lalla-Maharajh decided to establish the Orchid Project after spending time in Ethiopia, where she came into close contact with communities that experienced widespread practice of FGC.

She explained, “From then on I wanted to truly understand this problem and find a way to solve it. It has devastating impacts on a girl’s health, on a girl’s development. In some cases, it results in death from bleeding.”

Given that FGC affects at least three million girls in Africa, according to UN estimates, Nimco Ali of Daughters of Eve sought to explain from personal experiences why the custom is so prevalent.

“Back in Africa marriage is a commodity. Girls have no independence, and if they do not submit to this practice then they are socially stranded.”

As to why diaspora continue the practice in Europe or North America, Ali said, “a feeling of distance and unfamiliarity often drives diaspora communities to adhere to customs even more rigorously than the place they’re coming from.”

Speaking to Cherwell, Julia Lalla-Maharajh said that she recognises the persistent taboo that accompanies the subject of FGC, which makes her cause more difficult to promote and fund.

However, she added, “By 2013 an entire ethnic group in West Africa will have abandoned the practice, and it may see total eradication in Senegal by 2015.

Tania Beard, an OUSU women’s representative, who organised the talk, presented a motion at the end of the talk which was passed unanimously.

It stated, “WomCam resolves to ask Common Room Women’s Officers and Women’s Campaign members to submit charity motions to their Common Rooms, asking for donations to the Orchid Project, at OrchidProject.org.”

Brasenose has teamed up with Trees for Cities to host Oxford’s first ever carbon-neutral ball today.

Environmental rep Jocelyn Waller commented that the Ball committee wanted to “show that it is possible to have a normal Ball without changing much and still helping the environment.”
“We worked hard not to increase the ticket prices because we wanted people to see how easy it is to create this type of ball.

“We are hopeful that this will start a trend within Oxford Balls”.

To show the results of the evening, Morebins will be weighing the waste streams to show much was recycled.

The event’s partner agency, consultancy Environmental Perspectives, will be conducting a complete review of the environmental impact of the ball, as well as the carbon footprint, that will be shared online.

A motion to remove the mandate that enforced a disciplinary complaint of “dereliction of duty” against Hasan Ali, last term’s Librarian at the Oxford Union, has failed.

A Senior Disciplinary Hearing will now be organised by the Returning Officer in the next month.

The disciplinary complaint, originally brought against Ali by last term’s Union President, James Langman, had been mandated by the Standing Committee last term.

In this week’s Standing Committee meeting, concerns were raised as to the necessity of a Senior Disciplinary Hearing for Ali, with the current President, Ashvir Sangha, in particular noting the cost.

Union Press Officer, Alexander Reut-Hobbs commented, “When the complaint was bumped to SDC [Senior Disciplinary Hearing], some members of committee began to doubt whether it was worth the time, money and effort that the SDC would take, and whether other channels could be used to voice disapproval, which would be more informal, but much less costly”.

In the ensuing discussion, concerns were raised that removing the mandate would set a “worrying precedent” that the committee had the power to simply brush away such disciplinary complaints.

Although removing the mandate would leave it up to Langman whether or not he wished to pursue the complaint, the impression was given that Langman was inclined to withdraw it.

However, he would not have been able to withdraw the complaint unless the Standing Committee’s mandate was removed.

It was stressed that removing the mandate was “not passing judgement”, only leaving it up to Langman to do as he wished.

Some at the meeting also argued that as Ali was no longer in office, it would not set a worrying precedent for those who are in office.

As reported by Cherwell last term, Ali was initially condemned for “failure” to host a guest speaker and providing “conflicting, contradictory and incompatible explanations of this failure to complete his official duties”.

The vote’s failure, by six votes to five with two abstentions, ensures that the mandate remains in place, and so the complaint cannot be withdrawn by Langman.

When asked to comment on the implications of this for Ali, and for the Union, Reut-Hobbs issued a statement on the Union’s behalf, which said, “the Union doesn’t want to say anything that will pre-judge, prejudice or pressurise the SDC hearing”.

A man has been convicted of raping a 21-year old student in the John Radcliffe
Hospital last October.

At roughly 8.35pm, the victim was in the foyer of the hospital’s west wing,
waiting to visit her sister, when the 44-year old followed her into a toilet cubicle.

The jury took only 1 hour to reach a unanimous decision to convict Ian Joseph on
the 5th May, following a three-day trial in which the victim described her ordeal.

The victim stated Joseph spoke to her “through gritted teeth” and that he said
that she was “making him mad”. She also stated that, worrying he had a weapon,
she complied out of “sheer fear”.

With Joseph reportedly stating that if she was quiet he would let the victim go,
the victim also added that “she found it really hard to be quiet because [she] was
so scared”.

Joseph was arrested two days in later in Southampton, claiming only to have
waked in on the victim before leaving.

Joseph has however already had a criminal record spanning 23 years, having
committed serious offences from robbery and dangerous driving to ABH and
GBH.

As a result of Joseph’s latest crime therefore, Judge Patrick Eccles adjourned
sentencing for a probation report in order to determine whether Joseph presents
sufficient danger to the public to require indeterminate imprisonment. As stated
by the Judge, the sentencing “will inevitably be one that involves a substantial
period of imprisonment”.

Dc Rob Barrett, speaking outside Oxford Crown Court also stated that, “Joseph
had absolutely no connection to that hospital apart from trying to find a place to
stay. People should not fear going to hospital- it needs to be remembered who he
was”.

Joseph is currently residing in custody, awaiting sentencing next month.