As thousands of students marched on the streets of Westminster, heated exchanges about hiked tuition fees and education cuts were also taking place within the House of Commons.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, Nick Clegg’s U-turn in his policy on tuition fees came under fire from Harriet Harman.

The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party was met with applause and laughter when she said, “During the election [Mr Clegg] promised to abolish tuition fees. Can he update the House on how it’s going?”

When Mr Clegg told Ms Harman that there was a “consensus” across the parties about the need to reform university funding, Ms Harman hit back, saying, “None of us agree with tuition fees of £9,000 a year.”

She suggested Mr Clegg had been “led astray” by the Conservatives, who had plans “to shove the cost of higher education on to students and their families”.

But Mr Clegg said the government had come up with a “fair and progressive solution to a very difficult problem”. He said the Lib Dems had to change policy because of the financial situation and compromises made in the coalition agreement.

Mr Clegg added, “This is an extraordinarily difficult issue and I have been entirely open about the fact that we have not been able to deliver the policy that we held in opposition.”

The Lib Dems had made a pledge before the general election that they would not raise tuition fees and would fight all attempts to increase them. However, since entering government as the coalition partner of the Conservative party, leading members of the Lib Dems now support the proposed fee rises.

Much of the student anger at the London demonstration was directed towards Nick Clegg. As well as storming the Conservative headquarters, hundreds of students swarmed outside the Lib Dem offices.

Crowds gathered around a large fire, as students sung “Build a bonfire, build a bonfire, put the Tories on the top; Put the Lib Dems in the middle, and we’ll burn the f***ing lot”. Throughout the London protests students chanted, “Nick Clegg shame on you, shame on you for turning blue.”

Many protesters expressed their frustration and disillusionment with the democratic process after the Lib Dems’ policy changes regarding higher education.

Kate Halls, a fourth year Arabic and Hebrew student at Wadham, said, “We know that politely filing past Parliament to ask for favours will get us nowhere: the only way to achieve change is to make for the locus of power and start taking it apart. Only thus will we convince the hypocrites and thieves running our country that we are a force to be reckoned with.”

Patrick Fleming, a second year Oxford PPEist, said, “The claim that yesterday’s protest was spoilt by the scenes at Millbank is premised upon a naive trust in the workings of democracy. There is no channel for genuine debate of ideas, no prospect for government to listen its electorate, and crucially, no accountability between (or even at) elections.

“The violence was a rational expression of rage from citizens who have been tricked, ignored and sidelined time and again. There is no other channel which grants us the opportunity to express the extent of our frustration and alienation. We had to fight, and so we fought.”

A series of fines amounting to over £2000 issued by St Hugh’s has provoked outrage among many members of the JCR.

The fines have been collected by the college authorities for rule infringements this term involving smoking indoors, bringing guests into college, theft, having vomit in a bin, and vandalism of college property.
In Freshers’ Week, two first year students were fined £150 each and banned from the college bar for a term for urinating in a bush.

Later in the week, the college imposed further punishment after finding out that police had issued a caution to the same two students for what was described by one St Hugh’s fresher, who wished to remain anonymous, as “horsing around with some bikes in town.”

The offenders were issued with a further £300 fine, a year-long ban from the college bar and the threat of immediate rustication for any future offence.

The eventual punishment came after over two and a half weeks of meetings. The issue was referred from the Dean to the Disciplinary Committee and finally the Junior Proctor, who allegedly called the offenders “idiots” and “arseholes”, and told them that they did not deserve to be at the University.

This was one of several incidents incurring fines that were recounted to Cherwell, most of which have happened since third week. They concern largely, but not exclusively, members of the first year. Most of our sources wished to remain anonymous for fear of recriminations within St Hugh’s.

In another incident, two freshers were fined £100 each for stealing signs from Wadham, which were returned to the college within an hour.

One of the students was fined a further £100 for vandalising his staircase. This involved depositing seven slices of mouldy bread in front of a friend’s door, leaving cigarette butts lying around and creating a mess on his own door that he cleaned up the next morning.

A second year student was fined £200 for smoking in her room and playing music at 10.50pm, when neither of her neighbours were present. “I was hardly creating a ‘noise disturbance’ to other members of the college,” she told Cherwell.

There were also reports of group activities, such as conversations and watching films, being stopped by members of the decanal team.

Many within the college feel that the measures have been too strict, with one first year student saying “we feel our own independence is being infringed upon.”

One of those who have been fined told the Cherwell that he believed such punishments to be “highly disproportionate”.

He said that he resented above all the lack of “room for discussion” over the punishments. “Any response given to the dean was considered an act of rudeness.

“At times I was simply accused of things that were not the case, and
when I tried, as politely as I could, discuss this with him, I was shouted at,” he added.

Others have felt that there is a behavioural problem in St Hugh’s this year – with incidents such as windows being smashed – and that all punishments were administered in line with college rules.

“I don’t feel any of the fines have been arbitrarily dished out and all have been perfectly justified,” said one third-year student.

“Those first years that have committed serial offences need to get a life and realise that all this does is give their year a bad reputation.”

An email titled “Advice from the Dean” sent to all members of the JCR by First-Year Rep Tom Meacher warned, among other things, of the implications of breaking the law by smoking indoors.

“I must warn you that the dean takes this extremely seriously,” Meacher wrote, “as, if a member of the college staff complains (for example a scout who cleans your room) through their trade union, the college would not have a leg to stand on in court and would be liable for a fine in the tens of thousands of pounds.”

Sebastian Stain, one of the Junior Deans, told Cherwell that the college regulations have not changed since last year and that he felt that the increase in decanal activity was due to “the behaviour of some people in the first year.”

“The measures are completely appropriate,” he said. “Everything is in line with the college and university regulations.”

The “dramatic increase in decanal activity” was raised in a JCR meeting on 7 November by second-year students Annie MacIver and Shanna Martens. In their proposal they expressed concern that the punishments were having “an entirely adverse effect” and had “increased hostility to the decanal team”.

The motion noted that the decanal team does “a valuable and essential job,” but also declared that “students have the capacity and maturity to be aware of each other.”

It continued, “we believe it is unnecessary to discipline students for activities that can be shown to not inconvenience others, for example listening to music or watching TV late at night, having ensured that neighbouring students are not working or sleeping.”

The motion advocated writing a letter to the Dean “detailing [the JCR’s] concern” and asking for a reconsideration of the “current approach, perhaps returning to a similar attitude as last year that worked well.”
The proposal passed, with a friendly amendment allowing all members of the JCR to see the letter before it was sent.

If the letter did not produce the desired response, and “fines and repression continue,” the motion said that the JCR will consider other solutions, such as asking OUSU to “investigate perceived abuse of the disciplinary system.”

When contacted by Cherwell, the Dean refused to comment.

Christ Church JCR held an Emergency General Meeting last Sunday and passed a motion mandating its officers to support the Government’s proposals to raise tuition fees.

The finalised motion, proposed by Christ Church OUSU representative Sébastien Fivaz, expressed the JCR’s belief that except for the “extensive cuts”, the Government’s proposals provide a “sustainable future” for higher education.

Second year student Adrian Hogan said the Emergency Meeting took place because “our OUSU rep thought that it was important for our JCR to have a position.”

Fivaz, who is running for NUS delegate in this year’s OUSU elections, proposed that the Christ Church JCR defined its position “because OUSU assume ours currently.”

He continued, “Our views are slightly more nuanced than OUSU’s. We need to take a stance.”

Passed by 21 votes to 14, the motion followed a debate, where some students argued that the JCR should not take a position on such a contentious issue.

One student, James Ingoldby said, “The JCR should not play the role of government.”

It has also been suggested that a JCR position voted on by less than 10 per cent of undergraduates at Christ Church is inconclusive.

Stuart Cullen, former Union President, felt that “the JCR is very divided on the matter.”

He said, “Surely it is unfair to give the JCR representative a mandate to take a specific position on [tuition fees] when this does not reflect the JCR’s views.”

However JCR President Mike Barrett argued that “just because we cannot get a unanimous decision does not mean that this motion should be rejected…these are the processes in place to make the students’ voices heard.”

The motion’s suggestion to support an increase in tuition fees was met with opposition from many of those present.

One student, Thomas Peter Hire, argued that higher fees would mean that “Oxford and Cambridge will charge more than elsewhere, which will surely impact on who applies there.

“If universities can charge such high figures then students from poorer backgrounds would be discouraged from coming to Oxbridge.

“Oxbridge would become more of a ghetto for people with money than it already is.”

The JCR’s decision also risks putting Christ Church at odds with OUSU, who have expressed their opposition to the Browne Review.

OUSU have labelled the Browne Review a “blueprint for elitism” and President David Barclay called the decision to raise fees “a slap in the face to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

However OUSU has not commented on the Government’s proposals to raise fees as distinct from those outlined in the Browne Review, leading a Christ Church JCR committee member to point out that “the two policies are entirely reconcilable.”

Fivaz agreed, “The government have come to a good compromise [on fees] with soft and hard caps of £6000 and £9000.”

The final motion stated that the JCR believes “that a sustainable future for higher education funding is provided for by the proposals made by Her Majesty’s Government except the extensive cuts to higher education teaching proposed in the Spending Review 2010.”

Rumoured plans to close the Worcester college Buttery have been met with a mixture of mild anguish and stoicism by students.

In an email to Worcester students, JCR Secretary Alexander Short sent a stark warning that the Buttery was “in severe danger of closing”, explaining that “it loses large amounts of money, and the college considers that as it stands that money could be far better used elsewhere.”

Emphasising the extremity of the situation, he warned that, “Unless there is an extreme rise in usage extremely quickly, it will no longer exist in its current form.”

He entreated students to ignore the pull of big brand names: “Instead of heading to Combibos or Starbucks, why not go the Buttery instead? A nice quiet place to read a newspaper, have a chat with friends or do some work.”

Despite the range of services supplied by the Buttery, including food, free Wi-fi, and stationary items “at very good prices,” it makes a loss of £14,000 a year, and is mainly used by students to purchase tickets for formal hall.

Julien Anani-Isaac, JCR President, threw the JCR’s collective emotional weight behind the buttery: “Both the SCR and the JCR would love to see it stay open but it really needs to be used. The SCR are even willing to accept a loss if they see that the Buttery is being used.”

Anani-Isaac continued that “unless the Buttery starts being used by students, therefore making its existence justified, closing it is the only sensible economic option”.

However, the previously apathetic student body appear to have been mobilised by the threat posed to the Buttery. A Facebook group entitled “SAVE THE BUTTERY!!!” has been set up, and within an hour had over a hundred members. One member, Rebecca Adams, wrote “If everyone buys one thing a day this week we can save the buttery! Hurray!”

However, disillusionment within the movement grew equally quickly, as it appears that not all of the members joined the group voluntarily. The same Rebecca Adams wrote on the group’s wall “Can I leave this?”, with Robert Nairne asking “What’s the Buttery?” and the group’s creator lamenting “Oh god, what have I started?” less than ten minutes after the group’s creation.

Despite the substantial amount of money lost by the Buttery each year, students seem to feel it is money well spent.

Hugo Lewis, a third-year geographer, described the £14,000 deficit as a “small effect” on the overall college budget, stating it was “worth it” – although he did admit that there were only five people in the Buttery as he spoke.

Patrick Thomson, who is currently a postgrad student at Wadham but used to be an undergraduate and JCR committee member at Worcester, defended the investment.

Although he admitted that £14,000 was “not an inconsiderable” amount of money, he recalls “brighter days when birds would sing as you sipped coffee and bought a Curly Wurly”, claiming that “the Buttery is really part of the soul of the college”.

However rumours that the Buttery’s fate is already sealed may be misguided. Although second year E&M student Lucy Gregory pessimistically mused “It’s basically already decided it’s closing”, the college has denied that any such decisions have been made.

Steve Dyer, the Domestic Bursar, said there would be “no imminent closure” and that the college was “just seeing how the numbers stack up”. However, he confirmed that college is attempting to increase the number of people who go there “with free newspapers”.

Candidates were announced this week for this year’s OUSU elections, which are due to take place between Tuesday and Thursday of next week.

There are two candidates for the position of OUSU President 2011-2012: Martha Mackenzie, currently a third year History and Politics student at St. John’s, and Tom Scott, a third year PPEist at New College.

Scott has been heavily involved in charity work in Oxford, including Aegis, Food Justice and Student Action for Refugees. Mackenzie was president of the Oxford University Labour Club last year and is the current JCR President of St John’s.

Three of the five other sabbatical positions are contested by two candidates, with only Vice-President, Women uncontested. There were no applications for the Vice-President, Graduates position.

Tom Scott and Martha Mackenzie are both running on a slate, permitted in the OUSU elections, in contrast to Union rules.

Candidates backing Scott have submitted orange manifestos to show their support whilst those supporting Mackenzie have submitted blue manifestos.

Scott’s proposed policies include increasing student interaction with the community to support the Living Wage campaign and fight rent-rises in Oxford. He also proposes better integrating OUSU with college common rooms to help create University-wide policies on matters such as discipline and welfare.

Mackenzie is advocating reform of the academic probation system and an improvement in interaction between current students and both applicants and graduates. She is also lobbying for better access schemes and for funding to be provided for unpaid internships.

Balliol student Simon Stewart is running as an independent candidate for the Vice-President, Welfare and Equal Opportunities position. His manifesto includes his telephone number, and suggests that voters should call him if they are “throwing a party and want to see some sweet dance moves”.

He told Cherwell, “My style of dancing involves pointing in the air and jumping about – although it depends how the mood takes me.”

“Dancing makes people happier and combats stress”, he added.

The presidential candidates will take part in seven husts during their nine days of campaigning, and will also canvass support around Oxford through publicity campaigns. The slates are each allowed to spend just over £200 on efforts to win support.

Last year around 16 per cent of students voted in the election.

Playing Tetris may help post traumatic stress, Oxford researchers have discovered.

The game may have a special ability to reduce flashbacks not shared by other types of computer games.

In a study run by Oxford University scientists, volunteers were shown a film which included traumatic images of injury from a variety of sources, including adverts highlighting the dangers of drink driving, and then played Tetris on a pub quiz machine.

They found that the team playing Tetris after viewing traumatic images had significantly fewer flashbacks of the film, while the team who had played other games on Pub Quiz experienced considerably more flashbacks.

Researchers believe that the rapid succession of visual images in the game may distract the brain from recurring, intrusive thoughts symptomatic of post traumatic stress disorder.

Applying electrical current to the brain can enhance people’s mathematical abilities, according to new research by neuroscientists at Oxford University.

In the study, 15 student volunteers aged 20 and 21 were taught symbols that represented different numerical values, and were then timed to see how quickly and accurately they could complete a series of maths puzzles based on those symbols.

Participants whose brains were being stimulated demonstrated an improved ability to perform the task.

“We’re not advising people to go around giving themselves electric shocks, but we are extremely excited by the potential of our findings and are now looking into the underlying brain changes,” said Dr Cohen Kadosh, who is leading the study.

The effects are believed to last about six months. The research could help those with moderate to severe math disability, which affects nearly 20 per cent of the population.

The body of an Oxford Brookes student missing for 36 hours has been found in a stream in west Oxford.

Matthew Jones, 23, was reported missing by friends and family on Monday morning after he failed to come home from a trip to a pub in the city centre. His body was later found near his home in North Hinksey by police on Tuesday.

The Brookes student described himself on his Facebook page as a nice guy who loved to drink at the Purple Turtle in the city centre.

Police are now trying to find out more information about his final movements on Sunday.

The three dozen skeletons found under the Kendrew Quad in St John’s were Danes slaughtered in an act of ethnic cleansing, Oxford researchers have discovered.

Builders found between 34 and 38 young male bodies while digging the foundations of the new quad back in March 2008.

Carbon dating suggested the men died between 960 and 1020 AD, and initially it was thought that they were Saxons executed as criminals.

“They were lying over a prehistoric ditch,” said project leader Sean Wallis, “and buried under a late medieval building, so we thought they had to be somewhere in between.”

But now Wallis, who works for the Thames Valley Archaeological Service, believes he can pinpoint the killings to 1008 years ago to the day.

On November 13 1002, King Aethelred the Unready ordered the holocaust of every Dane in England. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells how the Danes in Oxford were rounded up into a church which was then razed to the ground as part of the St Brice’s Day Massacre.

“It was an awful decision,” commented Robin McGhee, reading History at St Anne’s. “Basically Aethelred was one of the worst kings in British history and didn’t know what he was doing. The Danes invaded Saxon England a few years later.”

The bodies in the Kendrew Quad are an exact match for the Danes, Wallis explained: “There were puncture wounds, sword cuts, and various other wounds.

“Some of them were decapitated, and others were almost decapitated. They were all charred.”

“The Vikings are well known for raping and pillaging, but they were primarily traders. These men could well have been merchants in Oxford, although there is a chance that they were the bodyguards of the daughter of the King of Denmark.”

Forensic science students from Oxford and Cherwell Valley College will continue to study the remains, and Wallis hopes to publish his findings in the near future.

Meanwhile, the reaction from St John’s students has been mixed.
“It’s really very creepy,” said second-year physicist Jane Saldanha. “I don’t think I’m going to get a good night’s sleep in college for a while. I’ll certainly think twice about heading across the Kendrew Quad in future.”

However, Classics graduate student Matt Hosty put a brave face on things.

“It doesn’t trouble me at all,” he said. “Our college has a fine tradition of sanctifying its foundations with blood sacrifice, and I’m reassured that the Kendrew Quad is built on such a fine tradition.”