OUSU’s lavishly-produced careers guide has been slammed by students as useless for job-hunting.

The Oxford and Cambridge Careers Guide brought in almost £40,000 of profit for the Student Union thanks to sponsorship deals, but failed to include the police service under its A-Z section.

The guide’s introduction boasts that it is “the comprehensive guide to finding a career.” However, it only features companies who have paid for advertising.

Melvin Chen, a Mansfield student who has published his own careers guide, said that OUSU’s handbook was “not really a guide.”

He added, “it’s useless unless you know what you want to do and then you wouldn’t need it… It’s a waste of money and a waste of paper.”

The “Not the 9-to-5” job category features only the British Horseracing Association, and only Lloyds TSB makes it into “Diversity and Inclusion” section. The Masonic Lodge has a full colour double spread, but neither the NHS nor the Army are featured.

University Chancellor Chris Patten described the book as “an excellent handbook… what luxury – fit for the coffee table,” according to OUSU’s material for prospective sponsors. But students have claimed that the guide puts style over substance.

A physics student hoping for a career in consulting also criticised the guide, “it’s awful. This is actually useless if you want a career. They tell you absolutely nothing about the job, it’s just a plug for the company.”

He added, “it’s all style, no substance.”

Another fourth year said, “careers are a huge part of our lives.” She said the emphasis on sponsored companies was “a bit silly. It’s meant to be a guide for us, but it doesn’t reflect that.”

She added, “it’s got a chair on every page. So it would be quite good for home furnishing except it doesn’t tell you where they’re from.”

Director of the Oxford Careers Service, Jonathan Black, said, “we guard our independence fiercely, which is why I wouldn’t put my name on this guide.”

He added, “we don’t support it, but it can be useful, as long as students recognise that its selective.” The careers service encourages any publications that encourage students to think about their future.

The Bodleian sit-in protest has been hailed a victory by student demonstrators, even though University authorities have refused to confirm their agreement to demands made during the sit-in.

Nearly 100 students occupied the Bodleian’s Clarendon Building last week in protest at Israeli actions in Gaza. They called on Oxford University to “release a statement in support of the rights of Palestinians” as well as divestment from arms suppliers to Israel. They also demanded 5 fully-funded scholarships to Palestinian students.

University Vice-Chancellor John Hood criticised the student occupation of the Clarendon building in a letter released on Wednesday. He said the Bodleian barricade “caused disruption and inconvenience to fellow students and other members of the University” and added, “unlawful action of this kind cannot be condoned.” He also did not condemn Israel’s actions.

The Senior Proctor also avoided expressing outright disapproval of Israeli actions in his response to the demands. He, however, promised to raise in Council the concerns regarding possible University investments in arms manufacturers. He also said it was regrettable that “many civilian casualties occurred in educational establishments.”

He stated, “the occupation of University property or facilities, and disruption of the activities of the University are offences.” He added that sections of the criminal law may also apply to the protesters’ actions. However, he added that he was prepared to recommend a “relatively lenient course of action,” given the peaceful nature of the protest.

The Oxford Students in Solidarity with Gaza movement that occupied the building welcomed these letters, although some have accused the University of going back on agreements made during the negations last week.

Spokeswoman Amy Gilligan said, “whereas we welcome the Senior Proctor’s statement and view it as a positive step in upholding the University’s commitment to universal human rights, it is our view that the University should take a stronger stance condemning the horrendous attacks on Palestinian students and educational institutions.”

She went on to state that the group “insists that the promised steps be pursued and applied in full.”

Juliette Harkin of St Anthony’s College, one of the individuals responsible for organising the occupation, stated that the outcome was “definitely a victory on many levels,” not least for the way that it had opened dialogue on the situation in Gaza.

She commented, “to have a uni like Oxford talking about these issues and promising to take things forward – this is quite an achievement.”

In response to claims that the University should not take a political stance on the issue, she said, “we don’t need to talk about pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, we are just talking about justice.”

Other protesters expressed disappointment with the response of the proctors, with some arguing that they had failed to execute agreements made during the negotiations.

James Norrie of the Oxford Radical Forum stated, “we do feel they have fallen short of what they agreed in negotiations.”

Other groups have attacked the demonstration as a whole.

Presidents the Jewish Society, Rafi Cohen and Rachel Romain, issued a joint statement declaring, “we feel that it is a shame that parts of the student body have prioritised the pursuance of short term political goals over the pro-active alleviation of the suffering of all people.”

Some students have also spoken out against the protesters’ behaviour. A St. Antony’s student stated that the “protests are not aimed at dialogue, they’re the opposite, they’re silencing moderate in the face of extreme.”

A Christ Church first year called the actions of the protesters “the epitome of detached, academic self-righteousness.” They said, “the students don’t want to solve anything, but just want to feel good, self-righteous about our cause.”

One of Oxford University’s most exclusive gentlemen’s clubs will finally fling its doors open to women – but only in the evenings.

Vincent’s, whose all-male members are selected for excelling in sport, has decided to open up its premises to members of the female equivalent, Atalanta, along with female sports teams. While the club will retain its strictly all-male membership policy, Atalanta members will be able to use the club in the evenings without being signed in by a Vincent’s member.

The lunch policy of the club, situated on St Edward’s Street, is unchanged and members of Atalanta’s are invited to have lunch at the club only on Saturdays.

Ellaine Gelman, President of Atalanta’s, acknowledged that it was a big step having access to Vincent’s since Atalanta’s has never had its own clubhouse.

She said, “this is an exciting time to be a member of Atalanta’s club – we have so many things in the pipeline. I think this partnership will be great for both clubs.”

She stressed that Atalanta’s and Vincent’s would remain autonomous, “Atalanta’s will remain a separate club – we are very proud of our history and our identity – much like the Vincent’s members.”

A committee member of Vincent’s commented that while the decision does nothing to reduce the exclusivity of Vincent’s, it will increase the club’s business.

He said, “from Vinnie’s point of view it increases the use of the club and it gets the girls’ equivalent of Vinnie’s more involved. The general idea is to get more people using Vinnie’s – the only difference is that girls are allowed to come up without signing in.”

Jess Barnes, ex-secretary of Atalanta’s, also warmly praised the decision, “I think it’s fantastic that Vincent’s now welcomes Atalanta’s members and female sports teams.”

She commented that this was “exactly the sort of change Atalanta’s has been looking for – such cooperation with Vincent’s club is a “brilliant development.”

She added that Atalanta’s members were very much looking forward to making the most of this new opportunity.

Atalanta’s was set up in 1992 with the aim of promoting women’s sports. Women are eligible to join if they have received a blue, half blue, or colours after competing in a Varsity match.

Vincent’s was founded in 1863 with the aim of bringing together the leading members of the University.

The Oxford Union is in serious financial jeopardy following a backlog of financial mismanagement and a loss of sponsorship.

The accounts of the Oxford Union have shown that were membership or sponsorship to fall, the Society would have insufficient funds to cover its costs for a year.

A backlog of missed targets has resulted in the financial difficulties. In the year leading up to June 2007, the Society lost 18,000. Last year saw only 16,000 of the £20,000 target being raised.

In 2003, its losses totalled £100,000.
One Union spokesperson attributed the losses to “unforeseen maintenance costs”.

However, they are part of a wider problem that the Union faces in getting sponsorship to help fund its yearly expenditure, which in 2007 was over £687,000.
Several committee members have blamed the termly changeover of Treasurer for leading to a purely short-term focus to the Union finances.

Current Treasurer James Langman criticised the “lack of long-term planning on the part of past treasurers”, whilst an anonymous member of the Union has stated that treasurers have purely used the position of Treasurer as a necessary step in the career in the Union.

One committee member said of Roche, who raised less than £1,000 in sponsorship during his time in office and fell well short of the Hilary target of £8,000, that he “didn’t give two figs about the finances, he just wanted to be President”.

Union sponsorship is usually arranged by each Treasurer on a termly basis, and there is currently no on-going sponsorship that might secure the Union finances long term.

The Union’s Bursar, Lindsey Warne, admitted that the situation was not ideal, stating that “in a perfect world, sponsorship would be on-going but most has just been for a term or two”.

Langman, who has so far raised £8,150 in his term and thus exceeded the Hilary target of £8000, has nevertheless expressed fears about the Union’s long-term financial security, stating that “It is one of the things we are quite worried about”.

Warne stated that “it is harder now to find sponsors, when it has already been increasingly difficult over the last few years due to competition”.

Langman reiterated this, adding that the recession had “massively” affected this term’s drive for funding and that attracting sponsors had become “very tough”.
He stated that sponsorship this term had been secured “substantially due to personal contacts”.

He added that competition with other University societies had contributed to the difficulties, saying, “the treasurers in the future are going to have to work harder than treasurer have worked in the past few years, particularly because of the competition that we are facing with other societies. Law Soc, in particular, now attracts more sponsors.”

Due to a backlog of financial failings, the Union’s reserves would be unable to cover its costs if membership and sponsorship were both to fall significantly or if continued to lose money as in 2003.

The Union only owns about one third of its buildings, the rest being owned by the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Trust (OLDUT), a charitable organisation set up in the 1970’s to ensure that the buildings would be saved even if the Oxford Union Society went bankrupt.

OLDUT now sporadically offers grants to the society to help with its running, and in 2005, they paid for building works in the Union library.

Langman stated that the trust is essential to the financial health of the Union, stating that the this year, “there was a small surplus, but only due to a grant from OLDUT”.

However, as it is a charitable trust, OLDUT will only give the Union money for projects that coincide with its objectives, for example the upkeep of the library. They do not fund social events.

Lindsey Warne said that “we are doing everything we can to make sure that the Union doesn’t lose money again”.

Langman explained that the Union has set up an alumni scheme to get donations from ex-presidents, which he stated “should hopefully raise some money”, despite a previous bursar’s destruction of about ten year’s worth of records meaning that the society is “losing out on quite a few people”.

Langman has also had plans approved to form a business team that will operate in a similar way to that of OUSU. He plans to recruit a team of Union members who will work to raise sponsorship over the Easter holiday.

The volunteers will receive commission on any funds that they raise that exceed £20,000.

The Society has also been forced to increase its membership fees, which have risen from £168 to £178 in two years.

The Access Scheme, which is supposed to offer students receiving a full maintenance grant a reduced membership under £100, has been pushed up to £99.

Some students have expressed anger at the rise, suggesting that increased fees would deter future members.
James Maclaine, a Union member and graduate of Lady Margaret Hall college said,

“if I could start my time at Oxford again, I wouldn’t join the Union. I spent so much money on membership and I just didn’t go enough to make it worth it. I bet if membership goes up any more, fewer and fewer people will join”.

Two firms involved in Oxford University’s animal testing laboratory withdrew from the project after an aggressive and threatening campaign by animal activists, a court heard today.

Oxford University Vice-Chancellor John Hood, speaking at the trial of animal rights activist Mel Broughton, told the jury that the then contractor Montpelier had suffered damage to “various assets of the company.” He said that members of animal rights group SPEAK were encouraged to carry out attacks and the company “felt they could no longer fulfil their obligations” as a result of the intimidation.

Broughton, who the prosecution say is the spokesperson for SPEAK, is on trial at Oxford Crown Court in connection with arson attacks to university property in 2006 and 2007.

He is charged on the two counts of conspiracy to commit arson and being in possession of an article with intent to destroy University property.

He denies both charges, relating to a fire that caused £13,000 worth of damage to Queen’s College sports pavilion in November 2006 and explosive devices discovered in the grounds of Templeton College in February 2007.

The head groundsman at Templeton College, told the court that he found the devices under an area of portacabins on the college site.

He had been informed earlier that morning by a colleague that a notice had been posted on the website Bite Back, run by the Animal Liberation Front, mentioning that an attack on the Oxford college was being planned.

He later discovered what seemed to be petrol bombs underneath the portacabins. He called the police, who summoned an army bomb disposal unit to secure the area.

The prosecution say that Broughton’s DNA was found on the incendiary devices planted in the 37 acre site and that sparklers used to construct the fuses of the device were found in the bathroom of his Northampton house.

The prosecution added that whilst they “respected his right to hold a firm opinion” on the matter of animal testing, they had “no respect for those who resort to terror and intimidation” to make their views known.

Broughton has a previous conviction for being in possession of an incendiary device to be planted in the name of animal rights.