A 19-year-old woman was sexually assaulted in the early hours of Sunday morning on Westbury Crescent in the Cowley area of the city.

The victim was punched several times in the head, pushed to the ground and sexually assaulted before she managed to escape and run off in the direction of Rose Hill Road.

The incident was Oxford’s fifth sexual assault in 8 days with four previous attacks on young female students from both Oxford University and Oxford Brookes.

Two women aged 21 and 24 were attacked between Southfield Road and Cowley Road in the early hours of Sunday 29th May and two more women, 19 and 20, were assaulted in a similar area in the early hours of last Thursday.

Police originally thought the five incidents may all be connected however, in the latest Thames Valley Police report, Detective Inspector Simon Morton said, “certain details have come to light that has led us to believe that the attacker in this incident is different from the man who carried out the previous attacks.”

The police have now released two e-fits of the men they would like to question in relation to these attacks.

The attacker who is believed to have carried out the first four assaults is described as “oriental or Asian, in his twenties, about 5ft 8ins to 5ft 10ins, of a slim to medium build with short black hair, possibly in tight curls”.

The latest attacker is believed to be in his late 20s, possibly Albanian, about 5ft 6in, clean shaven, of medium build, with dark hair and olive skin and is believed to have a bite-mark on his hand resulting from one of the attacks.
 

Many students have received emails from their colleges warning young women to avoid walking alone at night especially in the Cowley area.

A moth infestation in St Peter’s third year annexe on Thomas Street has caused havoc in the run up to finalists’ exams.

The college Bursar confirmed that the college would be taking action against Kingerlee, the company responsible for filling the roof cavity of the building and utility cupboards with inadequately treated wool, which attracted moths to rooms on the top floor of the building.

A spokesperson from St Peter’s said, “We noticed the problem early in the year and have done our best to treat the symptoms in order to minimise disruption to students. We have offered alternative accommodation but the students have opted to stay.”

One student living in the annex commented, “Some days I have killed literally hundreds of moths. My room is covered in splats, as is the corridor. It affects work as they fly around the desk lamp. Cooking utensils often have to be cleaned before use. Moths have flown into food and drink.”

The moths were first sighted in early January, and spread to lower floors in the building. Students contacted College officials in February and an extermination company sprayed the entire top floor in April.

Although this reduced the moth numbers for a few weeks, it failed to kill the root of the infestation and moths continue to irritate students taking finals.

The Bursar said, “The only solution is to remove the walls and ceiling and replace the insulation. We cannot do this until after Finals but the problem should be resolved before next term. The College will be pursuing a claim against the builder.”

JCR President Robert Collier said, “College staff have been extremely cooperative in helping the students through these unfortunate circumstances, and were very fair and reasonable during our discussion overcompensation.

“The college has immediate plans to remedy this situation before the beginning of Michaelmas.”

The JCR has negotiated an agreement on compensation for those students affected.

Kingerlee declined to comment.

Concern over the morality of Oxford University’s investment in arms has this week resurfaced following an article published by the Oxford Anti-War Action Movement in journal The Lancet.

The article condemned University investments in “BAE systems, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and other arms manufacturers” that totalled an average of £4.5 million a year from 2008 to 2010.

The investment in Lockheed Martin in particular was singled out. In April 2010 the University held £1.4 million worth of shares in the US-based company which manufactures cluster munitions, which are illegal in the UK.

“Saying you have a socially responsible investment policy while investing in cluster bombs and depleted uranium is like telling the world you’re tee-total while embarking on a binge”, said Ashley Inglis on behalf of the Anti-War Movement.

But Inglis says that their protests are having the desired effect. She explained, “There has been an instant response to our comment in The Lancet: it has been picked up by various journals worldwide.

“We predicted that the University’s image, already tarnished by its investments in the arms trade, would suffer further deterioration if the Council chose last June to ignore its ethical responsibilities and refuse to divest from arms manufacturers. This is now happening.

“The word has gone out far and wide that Oxford University has no ethical standards whatsoever.”

The University has however stressed that it regulates its investments carefully.

A spokesperson stated, “The Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee is responsible for looking at these issues. The University invests in funds, not individual companies.

“In June 2010, the Council of the University of Oxford set a restriction on the Fund regarding the direct ownership of companies whose activities contravene the Landmines Act 1998 and the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010. OUEM Ltd reports compliance with this restriction regularly to the Investment Committee.”

However, the decision by the Council in June 2010 concluded that they would only monitor investments where they were “pooled” rather than “direct”.

Inglis argued that the social responsibility procedure is “not a policy but a procedure – a procedure for taking ethical concerns and passing them through a discussion process totally devoid of intellectual and moral rigour”, and highlighted the prominent role of companies such as BAE in selling arms to regimes such as Colonel Gaddaffi’s in Libya.

She added, “It’s time Oxford University showed some of the intelligence it’s supposed to be famous for, engaged seriously with this issue and divested from the arms trade.

“We will be writing to members of Council to draw their attention to our comment in The Lancet. Thereafter we are going to take this to Congregation, which represents the entire University, and which can force the Council to reconsider this deplorable situation”.

Student opinion seemed divided. Politics student Lauren Potter commented, “On the one hand arms investment can be beneficial to the security of our country and the protection of democracy and humanity.

“But when it is revealed that the University’s investments are supporting those such as Gaddaffi’s, a line has to be drawn. I don‘t want my money, even indirectly, to support such an immoral debacle.”

James Kingston, who was President in Michaelmas 2010, claimed that his successor James Langman was guilty of “action that was liable or calculated to bring the Society into disrepute” and “abuse of office with the intention of financially or materially benefitting the offender”.

This was in regard to Langman’s response to Kingston’s cancellation of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaska in Michaelmas 2010.

The Union released a statement at the time, explaining that the Sri Lankan President was cancelled due to security concerns and the “sheer scale of the expected protests”.

Langman allegedly then travelled to the Sri Lankan High Commission in London to apologise in person for the decision, extending an invitation for Rajapaksa to speak just a few days later, during his term as President.

Kingston, who had a finals exam in the afternoon, was not present at the hearing, and said he was “extremely unhappy” with the outcome.

“There has been a clear breach of natural justice in that neither I nor my witnesses were able to attend during exams”, Kingston said.

The panel decided that Langman had “no case to answer” in Kingston’s claims.

Sidders, who also organised the SDC hearing noted that complaints need to be heard within 28 days of being passed. She noted that Kingston had plenty of time to lodge a complaint without clashing his commitment to exams.

In a separate case, the SDC meeting cleared Hasan Ali and condemned accusations against him as “frivolous”.

Ali faced a vote of no confidence from fellow Standing Committee members in Hilary term for failing to host a guest speaker, and for providing “conflicting, contradictory and incompatible explanations of this failure to complete his official duties”.

Seeking to recoup some of the cost of the hearing, the panel fined ex-President Laura Winwood, and James Freeland £40 each. Ash Thomas, who was not present at the hearings, also received an £80 fine.

The Union said that Winwood and Freeland were fined less “in view of their candour and cooperation with the proceedings”. Thomas slammed the panel’s findings as “totally unjustified”.

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” in a series of extraordinary meetings, held by the Standing Committee of the Union in 7th Week last term.

At that time Ali was running for President in Michaelmas 2011, although he later lost to Izzy Westbury in elections that were held on the Friday of 7th Week.

In a statement released by the Union, Ali said he was “relieved” by the committee’s findings.

However, he added, “It just worries me – and it should worry every member of the Union – that elections are no longer conducted on merit, rather, on the basis of who can smear whom the most in the student press.”

The New College of the Humanities this week faced vehement criticism and scepticism from students and academics alike.

Many have speculated that NCH, a privately funded university, is the answer to funding cuts to the humanities from the government, and that it will  rival to Oxbridge’s teaching standards.  

Niall Ferguson, a distiguished television historian who will teach at NCH said to Cherwell, “I am very enthusiastic about this venture and have been reading with incredulity some of the criticisms in the media this week.

“The best universities in the United States are, with a few exceptions, private institutions – not least my employer Harvard. The same can be said about the best secondary schools in Britain.” 

Ferguson continued, “Only a fool would oppose the creation of a liberal arts college like New College. Anyone who cares about the teaching of the humanities in Britain should be cheering on Anthony Grayling, and hoping that others will be emboldened to follow his example.”

However, students have condemned the university for the £18,000 annual tuition fee which only a small minority of privileged students will be able to afford. 

David Barclay, OUSU President slated the NCH, and stated, “The New College of the Humanities is a clear foretaste of the dystopian future the Coalition Government’s policies will lead the higher education sector into. 

“It is an affront to Oxford’s tradition of working to improve fair access to high quality undergraduate education, and yet more cause for the resounding vote of no confidence which we have now delivered to the Government.”

However, Dr Wendy Piatt, Director General of the Russell Group, said, “We welcome competition and we are relaxed about the growth in private universities, like the New College of the Humanities, as long as such institutions do not put significantly increased pressure on the already high-cost student support system.

“It would be unlikely that the NCH could join us if it is to be a teaching-only institution.”

India Lenon, a third year Classicist at New College, commented, “‘The founders claim that their new university will rival Oxbridge, but I’m not convinced this will be the case. 

“There will be two sorts of people who apply: students not bright enough to get into a good state-funded university, and students who are spellbound by either the word ‘Oxbridge’ or the ‘big names’ in the new place’s prospectus.”

Oxford Education Campaign have organised a protest next Friday, to greet Grayling when he arrives in Oxford to chair a talk at St. Antony’s College  to show their discontent at  this “unjust private institution”. OxEd Campaign urge students to “Fill in an application form online, telling them  you plan to win the lottery, rob banks, etc in order to pay the 54k”.