A group of students marched through Oxford’s city centre today last Wednesday to protest against the University’s investment in the arms trade.

The students voiced anger over University’s investment in BAE systems, a defence company that supplies Israel with arms.

The protest was organised by a coalition of student societies, including Oxford Students’ Palestine Society, Socialist Worker Student Society and Stop the War.

Twenty-five students began the protest from Broad Street shortly after lunchtime on Wednesday. Most were dressed in sub-fusc and carrying banners bearing slogans such as “End Oxford arms investment now!”

They chanted “1, 2, 3, 4 arms investment no more; 5, 6, 7, 8 don’t invest in the Israeli state” and “Oxford’s £1.7 million helped to kill the Palestinians.”

Habiba Islam, a first-year student at Sommerville said that the University‘s investments in BAE implicates Oxford’s students and claimed that she was protesting to register her disgust at the way her tuition fees were being used.

She said, “we as students are indirectly responsible for the death of 1300 Palestinians, including 400 children. I for one do not want to have my tuition fees going to kill a 6-year-old child. I think that is a horrendous thing for our university to be involved in.”

Another student added, “we’re here to put pressure on the Uni. We don’t think they should invest in arms systems.”

The demonstration comes as Oxford University’s council is to review its arms trade investment on Friday.

Aidan Simpson, one of the protesters said, “we want to make clear to the council the students’ feeling on this.”

He added, “if people don’t do anything, nothing gets done…Me individually standing here doesn’t make much of a difference but the fact that people want to stand up and make a difference, yeah it is does.”

Currently, Oxford University invests £1.7 m in BAE systems and about £4.4 m in other arms trade corporations.

The University’s policy on socially responsible investment states that it is “committed to ensuring that it makes investment decisions responsibly and with integrity”. The Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee is responsible for ensuring compliance with this policy.

Ruth Collier, a spokesperson for the university stated that Oxford is “committed to free speech and supports the right to protest lawfully.” She also pointed out that “the University does not invest directly in individual companies, it invests in funds, which then spread investments from many different institutions across many different companies.”

One witness to the protest said, “the students seem very determined and passionate. You can tell they’re believing in what they’re doing and they want to put their point across. I think the sub-fusc catches attention”.

Habiba Islam concluded, “we demonstrated today to show that we passionately believe Oxford university should be an educational institution not a sponsor of destruction and should disinvest from all arms companies immediately.”

Animal rights activist Mel Broughton has been found guilty of conspiracy to commit arson and has been sentenced to ten years in jail.

Broughton must serve at least five years before being eligible for release.

He conviction follows the discovery of petrol bombs hidden under a portable building in the grounds of Templeton College in February 2007.

Although the bombs failed to go off, a man was present in the buildings at the time, and the army bomb disposal unit had to be called to dismantle the devices and make the area safe.

Throughout the case, Broughton denied the charges, saying that he though he could understand why people would take direct action, he had only helped to organise legal demonstrations.

Part of the evidence that lead to the conviction this week was a DNA sample found on a matchstick used in the construction of one of the devices.

When police searched Broughton’s Northampton home, they found sparklers used to make the improvised incendiary devices in a water tank in his bathroom.

Broughton claimed that he had hidden these devices out of “paranoia” that police would misinterpret his ownership of them.

He claimed to have been under constant surveillance from the police.

Other evidence presented to the jury included Broughton’s “inflammatory speeches” and fingerprints found on the unexploded devices.

This was the second trial that Broughton has faced with relation to these incidents. He was tried in December 2008, but the jury were unable to agree on a verdict.

He had previously served over two years in prison after being convicted in 1998 of conspiracy to cause an explosion after the police found a bomb in his car.

Jurors were also told of a six month suspended sentence that Broughton had received in 1988 after a failed attempt to free a dolphin from an amusement park in Morcambe, Lancashire.

Broughton is a well-known figure in Oxford as the leader of the pressure group Speak, and has been seen as the figurehead of the animal rights campaigns against the building of an animal testing laboratory in South Parks Road.

Members of the University were called as witnesses throughout the trial, including Vice-Chancellor John Hood, who spoke of the campaigns of “intimidation” directed towards contracting companies involved with the building of the laboratory.

Judge Patrick Eccles criticised the campaigns, saying that many of them have been enacted by “individuals who have no care for the feelings or sense of security of the innocent men or women who happened to be associated with the laboratory.”

He spoke of the “real and profound sense of fear has pervaded the lives of very many people here in Oxford” as a result of Broughton’s actions.

The prosecution lawyer Paul Harrison said outside the court that Broughton was not a peaceful protestor, as he had claimed, but someone who “played a far more pro-active and sinister role by taking part in a fire bombing campaign.”

He added that today’s events in court could serve as a reminder that campaigns of intimidation would not be tolerated.

“This prosecution demonstrates that, where there is evidence of criminal behaviour, regardless of the perceived cause, a prosecution will almost certainly follow.”

However, a spokesperson for Speak said that the events at court today would not deter animal rights activists from protesting, stating “We are more determined than ever to continue the campaign against Oxford University’s abuse of animals.”

Nevertheless, a spokesperson for the University of Oxford said that they would remain vigilant, stating “we will continue to work with all relevant authorities to protect staff and students from criminal activity of any kind.”

After four and half hours of heated debate, OUSU Council has voted against the motion to condemn the conflict in Gaza.

The motion was beaten decisively, with 21 colleges in favour, 39 against and 15 abstentions, but only after 41 different votes on moves to vote and changes to standing orders and discussion of eight amendments.

The motion, in its original form, would have mandated the Student Union President to condemn Israel’s attack on Gaza and to write to Tzipi Livni, Israeli Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and to David Miliband, UK Foreign Secretary, demanding the maintenance of the ceasefire and to ensure that all borders are opened.

The result of the divisive motion has produced mixed reactions among students.

Some students have said that it was wrong for OUSU to take a political stance. But Lewis Owen, a first-year Jesus student, expressed disappointment at the defeat of the motion. He said, “I think it’s a real shame that nobody in Oxford has the guts to make bold political statements any more. We’re all apathetic drones, which is sickening.”

He commented on OUSU’s handling of the motion, stating, “I suppose that they attempted to make the process more democratic by allowing each college their own views, but ultimately it just muddled it up. At our meeting, we were told that we’d have a chance to vote on an amended version of the motion, before being told that it wasn’t going to be amended at all.”

Sanjay Nanwani, JCR President of St Peter’s, who voted against the motion, agreed that the phrasing of the original motion had been a problem in bringing about a consensus on the matter. He said, “I do believe the original motion was regrettably very poorly phrased and was therefore not conducive in forging a consensus on the issue.”

Despite the lengthy meeting devoted to the motion, some also argued that the timing denied a fair debate, as observant Jews had to leave the marathon OUSU council early in order to observe the Sabbath.

Lewis Iwu, OUSU President responded to the criticism, saying, “I made sure I spoke to as many people from different groups as possible when setting the time for council, hence why I moved the traditional starting time forward.”

The Gaza motion was also placed top of the agenda in both meetings. Furthermore I believed that over the course of two OUSU councils people had ample chance to contribute to this motion.”

Iwu commended on the way OUSU had handled the motion, “I think OUSU, and indeed its membership in common rooms across Oxford, dealt with this complicated issue in an adult and sensible manner. The chairing during council was excellent.”

The motion had been hotly debated in JCRs across Oxford since it was originally brought in response to the protesters who barricaded themselves inside the Bodleian Library three weeks ago.

At St John’s College, students even petitioned for an emergency JCR meeting in order to reconsider their vote. At Sunday’s JCR meeting they had voted to support the motion at Friday’s Council, condemning Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

But the petitioners demanded a secret vote, arguing that this was an issue of conscience.

Their petition failed, however, as JCR meetings must have 48 hours notice according to their constitution.

As students raised the matter on Tuesday night, the meeting would have been held in the early hours of Friday morning, ahead of the Council at 1:30pm. But college administrators refused to allow the JCR to book a room at that time of night.

Karl Eastman, a St John’s student involved in pro-Palestinian campaigning, said, “a referendum which began at 2am on Friday morning and closed at around 12 noon would not allow people to express their views anywhere nearly as effectively as they would at a JCR meeting.

The Oxford Union Society has come under fire for misleading members about the profits received from charity events held on the premises.

“Charities and Cocktails” was held on Tuesday in the Oxford Union, in connection with Oxford Hub. The advertisement for the event in the Union term-card told members to “add a dash of fellow-feeling and a pinch of generosity” and to “top up with Charity.”

But none of the money from this term’s event, held on Tuesday, went to charity. The proceeds instead merely covered the costs incurred by the cheap drinks deals and aimed to raise awareness for charities represented.

The Union have also claimed that any profits that had been made would have gone to the Oxford Hub, an organisation that facilitates charity work in Oxford, who organised the event in collaboration with the Union. Union Secretary Anna Williams said, “the profit of the event goes to OxHub, the society we are doing the event in collaboration with.” The Union’s costs were estimated at £20-30.

However, a budget for the event shows instead a 50/50 split in the income, estimated at £260, between the Union and the Oxford Hub.

Union President Charlie Holt said, “the Union’s half will go towards covering costs… We can only ever guess how much we need to take out. In this case, 50% seemed reasonable. What you are basing the £130 on is the budget which was presented, not the account which gives an accurate reflection of how much we took – this will be published on Monday.”

He denied that advertising had been misleading, “the whole point of the event was to raise awareness of the charities that OxHub support – it was never implied that we would give money from ticket sales to charity.”

Students have attacked the way that the event was marketed, stating that advertisements and publicity circulated mislead members into thinking profit from their purchases would go to charity.

One member said, “I’m shocked to learn that the ticket money isn’t going to charity. I didn’t attend the event but saw the advert in the term card… I’d be really angry if I’d bought a ticket to the event.”

Another first year student said, “this just makes the Union look really bad. It really annoys me that they’ve managed to get away with doing this.

“Fair enough if OxHub staged the event to publicise the work they do but members need to know that this is the point of the event. Normally if you pay to attend a charity event, it’s taken as given that your money will go to the charity.”

Union press officer Rebecca Molyneux defended this term’s event, saying, “I don’t think it was misleading at all. In a way it was giving to charity. Raising awareness could be considered giving to charity.”

She confirmed that last term’s event did not donate any money to charity either. She said, “it was purely an awareness-raising event. The money went towards the unlimited punch.”

Union President Charlie Holt said, “the main point was to raise awareness and I think that was made quite clear.” Union Secretary Anna Williams said that “the point of the evening is to not only make money for charity but also to engage students with the member organisations of OxHub such as Jacari and KEEN in order that they may give up some of their time to help them.”

The events coordinator for OxHub, Laura Higgins, stated that OxHub would not be receiving any profit from the event, claiming that the event was not “a profit-making venture, but merely concerned with cost-recovery.”

She said the aim of the event had been simply to “raise awareness of our member charities…to encourage more students to become involved in charitable activities during their time at university.”

She explained that the Union would take a proportion of the ticket price to cover “costs they have incurred publicizing and organizing the event from their end,” and that the “Oxford Hub portion equally goes to cover the costs incurred in running a sustainable events programme.”

She confirmed that profits from the bar would go to Thirst Lodge who provided the drinks at a discounted price.