An exhibition about Morris dancing in Oxfordshire is to be displayed by the university’s Bate Collection.

The exhibition, entitled “Oxfordshire Morris Dancing: a living tradition”, will run from 3 March – 3 April at the Music faculty buildings next to Christ Church.”

The items and photos in the exhibition, which have been loaned or supplied by Oxfordshire Morris sides, include a striped, painted fiddle, a buzzard mask, and a fool’s costume from the 1950s.

Project manager Alice Little, said: The entire exhibition is intended to show that whilst Oxfordshire hosts some of the oldest Morris sides in the country, there are a host of new sides being formed.

“And contrary to recent press coverage, a lot of young people are involved.”

A student led to the arrest of a notorious petty thief after she chased the man on foot when he cycled off with her bike.

Georgina Weetch, a Pembroke undergraduate, found her bicycle had gone missing after she left it unlocked outside St. Edmund Hall. But as she walked back to college she spotted a man cycling the bike down the High Street.

She said, “I chased after him and tried to shout him down but he cycled more quickly down St Aldates.”

“I’d pretty much lost him and then I saw a police car coming out of Pembroke Street so I flagged it down and asked the police officer to chase him!

“She said she was a bit busy – I glance to the back seat and see she’s just arrested two men – so I continued the sprint but to no avail.”

Weetch then reported the bike stolen at St Aldates police station, having given up on capturing the criminal herself.

“As I was doing this the police officer … said that an undercover police officer had caught and arrested him. He claimed he was dropping if off for a friend.

“Apparently he’s quite a notorious criminal and actually had loads of jumpers stuffed up his coat.”

The man initially claimed his innocence but has now pleaded guilty to the theft.

A remarkable archaeological find in the English Channel has shown that the Elizabethan navy were “almost 50 years ahead of their time technologically”.

Many sixteenth century cannons were discovered and have been described by marine archaeologist and fellow of St Peter’s, Mensun Bound, as “Britain’s first weapons of mass destruction.”

Although measuring a mere seven feet, a test fire of a replica demonstrated the exceptional power of the cannons.

Mr. Bound proclaimed the find as the “first set of uniform cannons, capable of firing the same size shot in a deadly barrage.”

Oxford research has discovered that even moderate drinking increases the risk of cancer in women.

The study followed 1.3 million women over an average of seven years, and found that a regular tipple increased risk of cancer by 6% relative to the 300,000 teetotallers in the group.

The results were corrected for a variety of factors such as age, weight, smoking, exercise and use of contraceptive pills, and applied regardless of the type of alcohol consumed.

Oxford’s Dr Naomi Allen, the lead researcher, said, “These findings suggest that even relatively low levels of drinking-about one or two alcoholic drinks every day-increase a woman’s risk of developing cancer.”

Gordon Brown’s speech in the Sheldonian was marred by protests, as demonstrators chanted audibly outside while the Prime Minister lectured on the importance of scientific research.

The protesters gathered to express anger at government bank bail outs and UK foreign policy. They chanted, “free, free Iraq” and “education for the masses, not just for the ruling classes” throughout the lecture.

Emily Dreyfus, one of the protesters, said, “given that in our very own city 850 auto workers lost their jobs last week at Cowley Mini plant due to the current government’s catastrophic role in and mishandling of the global economic crisis, it was ironic that Gordon Brown felt qualified to give a lecture on the economy.

“BMW Mini’s profits have in fact increased this year, therefore they have no justification for firing these people, but rather were simply acting in an opportunistic manner to cut corners and reduce costs at a time when they could claim it was necessary because of the credit crunch.”

She added, “I’m sure Gordon Brown could hear that we were protesting, and it was important too for the people on the street to be aware that we care about these domestic and international issues. We will take action to protest against war criminals such as Gordon Brown who are responsible and demand they change their policies to reflect the opinions of their electorate.”

Dominic Williams, one of the protesters, said, “we got no response from Brown or officials other than requests to be quieter and a mixed reaction from people passing by.”

But he hailed the demonstration as a success, “we were loud and noisy so a lot of people knew we were there including Gordon Brown, apparently we were audible during his speech. “

Brown’s speech stressed the importance of scientific research as a route out of the current economic crisis. He pledged to make long-term science funding a “national priority” and to increase the status of science in education.

He said, “some say that now is not the time to invest, but the bottom line is that the downturn is no time to slow down our investment in science but to build more vigorously for the future. And so we will not allow science to become a victim of the recession – but rather focus on developing it as a key element of our path to recovery.”

Brown also highlighted the importance of quality science education. He said, “one of the biggest stumbling blocks in science education is that in the comprehensive sector only a minority of schools offer three separate sciences as opposed to combined science qualifications.”

He added that the government’s aim is to double the number of pupils in the state schools taking triple science by 2014.

Krisztina Csortea, an Exeter student, commented, “overall it was an interesting hour, made even more so by the mounted police and the protesters outside. I think it was very appropriate to talk about science, as we were celebrating Darwin just a few weeks ago, and this topic was much less controversial than Gaza. He also made the speech even more relevant by mentioning the credit crunch or animal testing.”

Annabelle Chapman, a first year PPE student said, “I think the lecture showed Gordon Brown in a positive light; he looked better than on television, and though unremarkable, the speech was delivered naturally and sometimes filled the Sheldonian with polite laughter. At the same time, there was a sense of ”don’t mention the Economics-word,” let’s talk about mixing chemicals in a test tube – at least that works.”

She added, “I was a bit disappointed by the choice of topic; it would have been more appropriate for a Nobel Prize winner, who could have shared his insight. A politician, who knows nothing about the reality of being a scientist, was bound to give the standard answer of ‘pride in our scientific heritage,’ followed by a pledge to maintain it via ‘investment’ and ‘innovation’.”

Marcus du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics and Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford welcomed the Prime Minister’s policies. He added, “I personally was really interested in what he had to say about scientists rising to the challenge of communicating their ideas and discoveries. I know my colleagues at Oxford are already doing an enormous amount of work in this area – something that is crucial if we are to ensure that people are equipped to take part in debates in which the role of science is central.”

Prior to the lecture, the Prime Minister visited Oxford’s new Biochemistry building, where he met scientists from across the University for a roundtable discussion. After the lecture, he joined various members of the University at a reception in the Divinity Schools.

The lead-up to the presidential elections for the Oxford Union has proved controversial after two of the three candidates submitted flawed nomination material.

Tom Hartley, the current librarian, turned in his nomination forms without the mandatory fee of £40, whilst James Dray, a member of the standing committee, failed to mark the office he is running for.

However, Niall Gallagher, the society’s Returning Officer, has declared both candidates’ nominations valid.

He explained that he decided to accept Dray’s nomination because he had submitted the “right amount of money for the President-Elect position.”

Despite the society’s rules that the “nomination shall not be accepted” of a candidate who does not have “sufficient or authorised means of payment.”

Gallagher has since explained that he decided to declare Hartley a valid candidate because he could not “be satisfied that the rules are clear enough to render his nomination unambiguously invalid.”

He added, “on the basis of the evidence I have seen, I feel I must give credence to the Librarian’s declaration (both oral and written) that he had sufficient means of payment on his person at the time of nominating.”

This decision has led to concerns that a tribunal will be called if Hartley wins the election. The Standing Committee already discussed the possibility of such situation and one member has commented, “If Tom wins, there definitely will be a tribunal.”

Another student stated that if a tribunal was called after the election, it would “almost certainly rule his nomination invalid.”

Daniel Johnson, the ex-Returning Officer of the Union stated that such situations “made the Union look bloody stupid and re-polling was necessary.”

However, he commented that “the Union is democratic, and it’s up to the members to decide who becomes President – and I’m glad that we can continue to offer the only properly run cross-campus election in Oxford.”

Members of the Union have criticised failure of Dray and Hartley to submit their applications properly. A member of the Society said, “It was an exceptionally stupid thing to do for someone who wants to be President of the Union.”

Another said, “I’m sure the role of the president involves more difficult things than nomination. How they are going to manage everything else?”

Oxford students participated in a demonstration inside a Tesco store on Monday, in aid of Fairtrade Fortnight.

The students, who were dressed in red, gathered inside the Tesco Metro on Cowley Road equipped with fair trade bananas with labels detailing information about trade justice and fruit producers.

At exactly one o’clock, their phones rang and they held the bananas to their ears before handing them to other unsuspecting shoppers with the words “It’s for you”.

One student from Balliol stated, “I’m here because I’m passionate about bananas”.

He commented, “There were certainly a lot of bemused looks when we handed them out, and I’m not sure if everyone got the message, but I think it was good for spreading the awareness of the overall cause.”

The protesters caused enough of a stir to be asked to leave by the Tesco staff. The store manager commented, “They are welcome to demonstrate outside, but not inside. We just asked them to leave.”

He added that the demonstrators might have been a surprise for shoppers but not for the staff. “We were prepared for this to happen. We had intelligence reports that there would be a small protest of some kind.”

The flashmob was organised by Ctrl Alt Shift, a youth initiative encouraging people to be engaged with global issues such as fairtrade, HIV/AIDS, and gender and poverty. It is associated with Christian Aid.

It was part of a wider demonstration occurring across the country, including in London, Manchester, Glasgow and Bristol. They were organised in protest of the fact that Tesco stores still stock non-fair trade bananas.

A representative from Christian Aid present in Cowley said, “We are campaigning for Tesco to stock all fair trade bananas. It doesn’t just have to be about the living wage. It makes economic sense for them to do so.”

She continued, “When Sainsbury’s and Waitrose made the decision to do so, they saw their sales rise.”

Christian Aid and Ctrl Alt Shift, along with other groups such as the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development have been helping to raise awareness in Oxford of trade issues in the past two weeks.

A Christian Aid campaigner said, “The aim of this fortnight is to get people talking about trade justice. We’ve brought the debate to colleges, such as Christ Church, and people across Oxford have been organising Fairtrade dinner parties.”

She added, “We don’t want fair trade to be an issue, we want it to be the norm.”

The Oxford Union has voted down a move to impose a quota of at least one woman on the Debates Selection Committee (DSC) after some female debaters labelled the motion “insulting.”
The Union President, Charlie Holt, proposed that the debating committee must contain at least one male and one female member. Currently, all of the members are men, including the women’s officer.

The Union’s standing committee failed to pass the motion after debaters Ellen Robertson and Rachel Watson had set up a facebook group to petition against it and sent them a letter of opposition signed by debaters, both male and female.

Holt explained his support for the idea, “there is a problem of image and perception, in that an all-male DSC is likely to alienate female debaters and make them less enthusiastic about getting involved. A female women’s officer would inevitably have a better understanding of the problems that women debaters face and would be far more approachable to women who want to get involved.”

Joanna Farmer, a debater who campaigned against the motion, said, “for something like DSC, based on fixed criteria, it is slightly insulting to have someone there who bypassed the criteria and got on because of their gender. I am sure that, because of the individuals on DSC, she would not experience any discrimination by those on DSC, but it’s a matter of perception. Furthermore, I don’t think this would do anything to solve the perceived problem.”
She added, “I didn’t think there was a problem with the DSC women’s officer being a man because I’m not sure if there are any ‘women’s issues’ in debating. It’s not like we need motions to cover ‘girly’ things. It would be ideal for the women’s officer to be a woman, but not essential.”
Farmer welcomed the motion’s failure, saying, “we hope that it opens the door for a meaningful discussion of the issues at the root of the problem.”
Max Kasriel, a DSC member, expressed his approval at the motion’s failure. He said, “I think that the quota belittles the achievements of women in debating.”

He added, “we have been making a special effort to ensure that women are prominent at our events, having women take part in our ‘show debates’ to provide female role models, and asking women to judge our internal competitions.”

Some other debaters have voiced support for the quota, several questioning whether the opinion of the campaigners represents that of the whole female membership of the Union.
Alex Worsnip, a former Chair of DSC argued, “my view, based on observations over many years, is that having an all-male contingent fulfilling this role discourages female participation, particularly, but not exclusively, amongst novices. I therefore took the view that a quota for DSC would help to combat this, and was involved with first bringing the idea to committee in November 2007.”

He added, “I was disappointed to see that the quota did not pass in the end, but I do hope that DSC gets some female members in the near future anyway.”

Stuart Cullen said the women’s quota would help to dispel the image of a male-dominated DSC and fewer women would feel put off and intimidated.

He said, “when women attend the first sessions of debating in 1st week of Michaelmas, everyone who addresses them is male. This creates a perception that women are under-represented.

“If even one member of DSC were to be a woman, whether or not she was there by virtue of a quota, it would significantly dispel this negative impression.”

But he added, “if the vast majority of female debaters are totally opposed to a quota, it will not be particularly effective, and probably shouldn’t be passed.”

Rachel Cummings, OUSU Rep for Women, praised the proposal of a women’s quota. She said, “personally I am in favour of a quota. There is a problem with women’s involvement in Union debating, women should be the ones leading the work to change this and such work would be best done from within the DSC. Quotas are only patronising if we think women are genuinely worse (rather than facing structural or cultural barriers) and this certainly isn’t the case.”