Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 2123

Tony Benn joins animal lab protest

By
Clare Kane
-

Former Labour politician Tony Benn has spoken out this week against the new animal laboratory in Oxford.

Benn met with fellow Oxford alumni Sir David Madden, and the Voice for Ethical Research group in Oxford (VERO) on Monday to express his concerns about the lab.

Benn, who studied PPE at New College, told VERO, “I have always been a believer in animal rights. There is now a lot of strong evidence that animal testing is not necessary, and could be done in a different way.”

Benn has spoken out against animal testing saying, “the tide is turning fast against those who still cling on to the view that experimentation and testing of drugs on animals is valid and necessary.”

Animal campaigners at the event on Monday wore academic dress to highlight the existence of what they believe is a large anti-laboratory sentiment within the University itself.

The University has insisted that the new lab will improve the welfare of lab animals. The new building will rehouse animals that were previously scattered around various buildings and to “set a gold star for animal care.”

John Hood said, “Where animals are needed in research, we are committed to the highest standards of care. That is why we have built this new facility.

“The fact that we have completed it in difficult circumstances reflects the depth of our commitment both to life-saving research and to animal care.”

The first mice have been moved into the laboratory on South Parks Road and it will become fully operational in 2009.
Yet the university has insisted that testing will not take place.

Animals will be bred, trained to complete computer-based tasks, receive medication, undergo MRI scans and some will be operated on.

The issue divides students and staff across the University. One student, who wishes to remain anonymous said, “I’m completely against the lab and outraged that Oxford would partake in such controversial activities.”

However another student admitted, “sentiment needs to be outweighed at some point, overall, finding a cure for something like HIV is too important.”

Oxford claim they support peaceful protest and discussion, but find the “intimidation, threats, damage to property, and arson” the University has been subjected to “entirely unacceptable.”

Some students have expressed anger at noisy and possibly dangerous protests, with one saying, “These protests are futile. Let’s face it, no one wants to do it, no one says ‘Let’s torture animals.’ Scientists want to help us.”

 

Restaurant Review: Mario’s

By
Tara Morrison
-

103 Cowley Rd.

On a boring Monday night in Oxford when work is never the appealing option, I found myself debating with 4 friends about where to go for dinner to liven up what was otherwise a day that had really nothing to be said for it. The discussion about where to have supper was protracted as options were vetoed as too expensive (Fishers), too boring (Pizza Express/Wagamamas/Ask) and too far (Cafe Rouge/Strada).

After much discussion it was concluded that Mario’s Italian restaurant in Cowley was to be the destination of our evening out. Having decided to make the trek into Cowley it was pleasant to discover that it really isn’t that far, although this may not be the case if you live at the opposite end of the high street to Magdalen Bridge.

However, having braved the pretty dubious British weather and arrived at Mario’s only slightly wet from that staple of the English climate – freezing drizzle – it was suitably welcoming and warm in the Italian that was to be our destination for the evening. Having been quickly seated, by an only relatively stroppy waitress, the menu was perused at length.

Once decisions had been made there was time to consider the atmosphere and our other diners. The latter were in fact sadly lacking. Undoubtedly Monday night is not the liveliest night of the week, however, one might have expected to see more people at what is essentially an unostentatious, local restaurant. However those that were there seemed to be enjoying themselves and there was just enough people to ensure that there wasn’t that awkward atmosphere in a restaurant when it is completely silent except for your party.

The interior of Mario’s is by no means particularly luxurious, but it is perfectly pleasant and in keeping with its niche in the market. In fact it is just what you would expect from you local Italian, and as a result is rather pleasing.

As for the food, the starters arrived speedily. Garlic bread, calamari fritti and prawn cocktail were all simple, but still delicious. Our choice of main courses may not have been the most sensible. Pasta carbonnara and pasta with meatballs were both perfectly pleasant but rather unexciting. The large quantities that were served were no doubt a very good thing and you had the feeling that you knew what you were going to get, no dubious surprises there.

The pizzas on the other hand were fantastic. Very thin crispy bases, lots of mozzarella – I sincerely wished I had chosen one of them. Overall, this restaurant seemed to be exactly what it set out to be, a cheap and cheerful local Italian with exceptionally good pizza.

Half a starter and a main course came in at under £10, and one left with the contented feeling that one had eaten lots of genuinely nice food. However, I’m not sure I would recommend it as a date destination on the basis of its slightly unexciting ambience. In spite (or perhaps because) of this, the downstairs room can be hired by a group and it would be excellent for not-too-boisterous socials.

PRICE  £10 a head including starters
IN A WORD  Cheerful

 

5 Minute Tute: The right to die

By
Prof Julian Savulescu
-

WHY SHOULD WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DIE?

Savulescu’s explanation is threefold. Firstly, because some lives become so painful due to illness that they are no longer worth living. Secondly, humans should have the right to determine our own lives, including how we die. This is a matter of free will and self-determination. Lastly, one of things that matters most to people is how and when they die. The state has no right to compel us to anything, when we are not harming other people, including continuing to live.

WHO OPPOSES CHANGE, AND WHY?

Opposition to change in the law is led by religious groups who subscribe to the sanctity of life at all costs, says Savulescu. He is of the opinion that religious views are being imposed on those who have different, non-religious values. Some view this as a new form of discrimination against the non-religious. The issue is particularly divisive and provocative because it involves killing human beings, including, those who are frail and sick.

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST?

Pro-life groups such as the Medical Ethics Alliance affirm the unique value of all human life, its God given dignity as giving rise to a consequent right to protection in law. They argue that all persons are of inestimable worth, irrespective of illness or disability. Furthermore, another fear is that a right to die could lead to pressure on those who are vulnerable, such as the elderly and dependent, to take their own lives to avoid being a burden on others. Savulescu argues however that such anxieties are better addressed by proper legislation than forcing those with terrible lives to live against their will.

IS THERE SUPPORT FOR A RIGHT TO DIE?

Savulescu says he is one of a growing number that believe rational people wish to control the circumstances of the end of their lives. “It is only a matter of time before assisted suicide and euthanasia are permitted, if we are a sane, humanitarian society. It is “playing God” to compel people to live, to deny people the means to end their lives in a dignified and compassionate way. It should and will be that each of us decides for his or her own life how and when we die.” This view was reflected in the 1996 British Social Attitudes Survey which, found that 82% of the public believe people suffering from painful, incurable diseases should have the right to ask their doctors for help to die. Every opinion poll since then has produced similar results. There are a number of groups such as Dignity in Dying who devote themselve to canvassing for a change in the law.

WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW?

Dignity in Dying, a group at the forefront of those campaigning for a right to die claim that the current law is uncertain and arbitrary. Changing attitudes and the sensitive nature of the issue mean there is a dicrepancy between what the law says and what the law does. The current law, they say, inflicts a terrible ethical dilemnia on patients, families and doctors resulting in covert euthanasia, mercy killings and premature suicides. Furthemore, an increasing number of UK citizens are travelling to Dignitas, an organisation in Switzerland that helps people to die. About 30 UK citizens have died there. Family members who accompany them can be prosecuted under the Suicide Act 1961. Dignitas has however come under criticism for assisting the suicides of people who are not terminally ill and not mentally competent.

HOW HAS THIS WORKED IN PRACTICE?

In October 2008, MS sufferer Diane Purdy lost a high court case in which her legal team argued the right to respect for her private and personal life, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was being breached because of lack of clarity in the law. At the case Lord Justice Scott Baker expressed, “great sympathy for Ms Purdy, her husband and others in a similar position who wish to know in advance whether they will face prosecution for doing what many would regard as something that the law should permit, namely to help a loved one go abroad to end their suffering when they are unable to do it on their own. This would involve a change in the law. The offence of assisted suicide is very widely drawn to cover all manner of different circumstances; only Parliament can change it.”

 

Bagpipe busker silenced by ban

By
Gretta Mullany
-

Cornmarket’s bagpiping busker is flying back to his native Australia after the council banned him from playing in Oxford City centre.

The bagpiper, Heath Richardson, had breached the rules of his contract by playing for too long at his favourite Cornmarket pitch.

Richardson, 33, who has been busking in Oxford for 14 years, sparked a petition war last year after 400 traders signed a petition to have him expelled from the street. He returned the challenge with his own petition of over 1000 names.

The Council compromised by allowing Richardson to remain, but restricting all buskers to playing for only one hour in one place.

Richardson has protested against the ban, saying, “I was following the rules but the people complaining kept complaining. The council interprets everything I say like its a lie.”

But local traders have expressed their joy at the news that Richardson will be leaving at the end of the month.

One manager of a Cornmarket shop said, “I am very very pleased he is leaving because the noise is so overwhelming and so loud we have to keep the doors closed.

“When the doors are closed, it looks like the shop is closed and so customers don’t come in”, she remarked that while she enjoys listening to other buskers play, he “wasn’t making music, but making noise”.

She added, “he corrupted sales with his incessant noise and gave the shopkeepers horrible headaches.”

On top of this, the manager argued that “the most frustrating thing is that the council won’t regulate it”.

She explains that after Mr. Richardson had his licence revoked, he continued to play and traders were told, on reporting this to the Environmental Health department, that he does not actually need a licence to play and so the department were unable to do anything.

A shop assistant at Moss Bros commented that the bagpipes are “really annoying” as Mr. Richardson would play them “all the time” and continued to say that though his playing has in no way affected customers, he and his colleagues are “happy he’s leaving”.

A spokesman for Oxford City Council, said, “Oxford City Council welcomes most street entertainers and feels they add to the street scene in Oxford. Mr Richardson has had his busking permit revoked as a result of persistent breaches of the voluntary code of practice.”

The Busker’s Code of Practice states that the council must intervene if the busking becomes “intrusive, annoying or disturbing.”

Richardson said it will be a relief to be rid of the Council’s interference, “it’s needless stress and there’s no reason for them to do it.”

Richardson complained that despite the fact that he had told the council he was going home to Australia, they have continued to harrass him.

Richardson also hit out at the new busking restrictions. He said, “They’ve killed off busking in Oxford. They’ve run the buskers out of town.”

Some students have expressed regret that the piper will be leaving. Olivia Wakefield at St. Anne’s college said, “I’m really disappointed, I thought his music was individual and unusual.”

However, students at Jesus College living in college accommodation on Ship Lane had previously complained about the noise made by Richardson’s bagpipe playing, saying that his busking made it impossible for them to work in their rooms.

 

Organ Honesty

By
Victoria Morrison
-

After nine months of deliberation, the Organ Donation Taskforce recommended to the government this week not to change the law to presume all organs are a donation upon death unless instructed otherwise. Ostensibly, this would seem like an admirable solution to the clear problem concerning organ donation. The lack of donors in the UK is a major issue; we currently have the lowest donor rates per capita within Europe. More than 1,000 people have died in the past year while waiting for a new organ, despite more than one million new donors registering.

The issue of trust has emerged to be at the crux of the debate surrounding presumed consent. Fears abound that the Prime Minister is attempting to nationalise our bodies.

There are also concerns surrounding government’s habit of losing data, particularly given the sensitive nature of donor records. But the primary concern regarding trust lies with doctors and medical officials. The image of doctors wheeling patients off to die in an operating theatre, scalpels at the ready, pertains. This is underlined by the belief that doctors will place a higher value on the life of those patients requiring life-saving organs, rather than fairly distributing their efforts to all of those in need. Although unlikely, the fear that a doctor could defend the life of a potential donor with less passion is a potent argument against any organ donation, but particularly against presumed consent.

The idea that a lack of opposition equals ‘informed consent’ is a key problem with ‘presumed consent’. While organ donation is widely publicised, the socially disadvantaged are less likely to be aware of their rights, and less confident in defending them if their organs are assumed to be a donation. Of greater concern are those who choose to opt out. Would they be a lower priority to receive organs should they need them? While we think of organ donation as morally upstanding, many prefer not to, and should not be judged on this matter of conscience.

The real issue is that we don’t talk about this problem enough. Our families rarely know our wishes and so could not enact them, should they need to. The head of the British Medical Association, a supporter of presumed consent, has highlighted the need to discuss organ donation with friends and family, as education alone has not raised the issue prominently enough. Undoubtedly further publicity, education and openness regarding organ donation will help; presumed consent is not the answer we’re searching for.

 

Clamping down on legal protest

By
Jonathan Leighton
-

In January this year I was arrested after attempting to throw a bottle of water to a man protesting against the felling of around 40 mature trees in Oxford city centre. He had been cut off by a steel fence and council-hired security guards. The reason for my arrest – ‘littering’ – was clearly absurd, and I was released a few hours later without charge. I subsequently sought legal advice and received £1500 compensation in an out of court settlement.

Perhaps I was merely the unfortunate victim of an over-enthusiastic officer? A video which was filmed before my arrest would indicate not; in it, a policeman specifically states that anyone attempting to throw supplies up to the tree will be arrested for littering.

In fact, police repression of political protest is a remarkably common hassle for those involved. At this summer’s ‘Camp for Climate Action’ near Kingsnorth Power Station, Kent Police launched one of their biggest ever operations. They enacted a ‘Checkpoint Charlie’ near the entrance to the camp, and everybody entering or exiting was stopped and searched. On one occasion I had a black marker pen confiscated, due to its alleged potential for criminal damage. Another time it cost me three searches and over an hour to get bread 500 metres from a van into the site.

The police made ample use of their helicopter, regularly flying low over the site, which caused real disruption to meetings and discussion groups. Early on in the week they got a warrant to search every single tent on the site. They confiscated wood which was needed to build toilets, ropes for the marquees and piping for the water infrastructure. Those who peacefully resisted were hit with batons, pepper sprayed and arrested.

Their keenness to be on site continued throughout the week, with a series of 5 AM attempted incursions which kept everyone on edge and made it difficult to get a good nights sleep. The local MP visited the site and told the BBC he found the use of riot gear “incomprehensible”.

Another tactic used against protesters is surveillance.

Police Forward Intelligence Teams regularly attend demonstrations with huge video and still cameras. They are not simply interested in your photo, they want to know who you talk to and who talks to you. The focus is on trying to find ‘the leaders’ – key people to target for intimidation, arrest and prosecution. In recent anti-arms events in Brighton, they have forced anyone ‘masked up’ to show their face or be arrested.

We are told that the police are a ‘force for good’, that they protect upstanding citizens from the horrors of serious crime. This may be the case, but they are also heavily involved in protecting the government and corporations from peaceful protesters exercising their right to free speech, often acting illegally on or extremely dubious legal ground.

As shown by a £5.9 million spend at climate camp this year, the police see it as their role to prevent any form of civil disobedience taking place. In written evidence recently submitted to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, a member of the camp’s legal team noted that this strategy is vastly different from the 1990s, where police would generally intervene only if there was actual evidence of an offence being committed.

I was able to get compensation following my arrest because it was clearly unlawful. Recently the law has come out in favour of the six Greenpeace protesters who climbed the smokestack at Kingsnorth and caused £30,000 worth of damage by painting “GORDON” down its side. They were acquitted by a Crown Court jury on the basis that their actions to shut down the power station protected property in immediate danger due to climate change.

This is a fantastic victory, and whilst it does not set a legal precedent, it will no doubt give confidence to campaigners who are working to take action on climate change. However, the law does not always protect our civil rights.

On the 7th of December 2005, Maya Evans became the first person to be convicted under Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). Whilst the name of the SOCPA doesn’t sound like it deals with peaceful protesters, Section 132 makes it illegal to hold a demonstration within approximately 1 mile of Parliament without first seeking police permission. Maya Evans was arrested whilst standing at Whitehall’s cenotaph to read the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. People have subsequently been threatened with arrest for eating a cake with the word “PEACE” on it, and holding a blank placard.

Whilst many will never face such intimidation, those who stand up for their own rights, both through legal channels and straightforward dissent, are also standing up for your rights, whether the issue is the environment, peace, animal rights, or anything else. Whenever a single person’s freedom is undermined we all suffer.

 

Blues step up to outpunch Tabs

By
Alison Crawshaw
-

OXFORD 3
CAMBRIDGE 1

The Blues pulled out a convincing 3-1 win against Cambridge this Wednesday, proving their strength as a side and reiterating once again to Cambridge that they still have plenty of work to do if they want to compete with Oxford at a top level.

The win awards the Blues another 3 points in the BUCS South Premier Division, and extends their victorious head-to-head record against Cambridge. Having only been promoted this year to the top league in which Oxford sits comfortably, Cambridge are clearly struggling to find their groove and as of yet have only been granted one lucky win this season, against currently bottom of the league Cardiff University.

In the early minutes of the game however, it looked to be Cambridge that had the advantage, immediately putting Oxford under pressure. Despite two good deflections by goalie Jess Hughes, Cambridge put away a goal on the third punch for a 1-0 lead.

Oxford were determined not to be disheartened so early in the game, and, fuelled by their thirst for a win, stepped up their level of play. Quick passing and moving around the Cambridge defence in the D resulted in a solid goal scored by Helen Macadam and brought the two teams to level pegging.

From this point the fight was really on, with the momentum swinging in both teams’ direction, each side trying their hardest to string together a series of advancing moves in attack. Cambridge came up with a quick reply and were awarded a short corner, but sturdy defence, in particular by Aynsley Bruce, saw Oxford block their opponent’s attempt. Oxford retaliated with a short corner of its own, but failed to capitalise, sending the ball wide. Play continued to move up and down the pitch, with both teams pushing each other but neither managing to have success in finishing. An attack on goal by Cambridge saw goalie Hughes diving dramatically across her territory, illustrating her speedy reactions and agility as a player, which were crucial for a number of excellent saves that maintained the team’s peace-of-mind. Determined drives and persistence by Oxford’s front line clearly showed their hunger for another goal, but unsettling jabs by the Cambridge defence sufficed to hold off any real threats of attack. What looked to be a deserved reward for Oxford’s persistence following a firm strike from yet another short corner by captain Charlotte Jackson resulted in a harshly disallowed goal. The end of the first half saw a crucial rescue of the ball by Alice Cook during a driving Cambridge attack on goal, maintaining the score at an even 1-1 and preventing what could have been a powerful Cambridge counterpunch.

Resuming after halftime, it quickly became apparent that both teams had realized that their earlier performances were sub-par and were hungry to launch new and successful attacks against each other. There was a noticeable improvement in player positioning across the pitch, passes were firmer and sent with meaning. Within four minutes top-scorer Beth Wild exhibited her worth and flair as a forward, delivering an arrowed ball into the top left-hand corner of the goal, catching the Cambridge goalie by surprise and resulting in a failed attempt to deflect the ball away, making the score 2-1 Oxford.

Coach John Shaw was quick to remind the girls of the consequences of a goal against a strong side in their division and stressed the importance in remaining focussed, as any momentary lapse in concentration could easily result in a quick Cambridge-riposte and Oxford conceding. The Blues stayed solid, however, and continued to find their form. Having lost a number of experienced players through yearly turnover they have had to work hard early in their season in order to build up their side again. A strong 1-1 draw against Bath Women’s 1st last week and a 4-1 win earlier in the season away against Cambridge provided the team with plenty of confidence for today’s match. Their additions from last year’s 2nd team and new talent from the pool of Freshers began to appear integrated in the general workings of the team, and as the second half progressed Oxford looked to be painting firm strokes of victory across the pitch.

A quick break by Helen Macadam for Cambridge exhibited her speed and swiftness on the ball with a good drive down the left wing followed by a strike that curved just wide, hitting the side of the goal box. Oxford were clearly dominating, however, and continued to put Cambridge under pressure, whose defence looked like it was starting to crumble. Were it not for a lack of composure in the final third of the pitch, Oxford could have capitalized on a number of opportunities in the D. An example of just how good a team they can be, and their potential for the rest of the season, came following excellent working of the ball from a free hit to award the Blues with a short corner. A good link up that involved pulling the ball out to the left, five yards out of the D, confused the Cambridge defence, and a simple ball fed across to Beth Wild, perfectly positioned at the top of the D only needed her quick control and strike on target to give Oxford their third goal and Beth’s second of the match.

As the match neared an end, the Blues did not lag, and instead fought to secure the win over their rivals. Strong, gritty play by Natalya Kennedy around the top left of the D showed a great tousle for possession and awarded the side with yet another short corner. With the clock ticking, the shouts of encouragement from Coach Shaw fuelled the girls to make the last ball count, but the whistle was blown and the match came to an end before they were able to deliver a final punch to the Cambridge side.

 

BBC Sports Personality of the Year

By
Sean Lennon
-

I hate naysayers; those annoying, impossible to satisfy people that manage to pick fault in even the most wonderful of successes. The aftermath of the Olympics saw a whole bunch of ‘Why did we drop the baton, why do we only win sitting on our arses?’ pile of rubbish articles designed to fill up newspaper space with something ‘different’.

Seriously, just give it a rest. This has been, without doubt, one of the greatest sporting years in the history of the British Isles. Accept it.

We finished fourth, yes fourth, in the Olympics. In fact the only nations that finished above us have such unfairly large populations and resources as to render our chances of beating them nil. We annihilated the French, dominated the Australians, and destroyed the Germans. We won an astonishing 47 medals, 19 of them gold, and the sporting achievements of the kingdom hardly end there: Lewis Hamilton became the youngest ever formula one champion, Andy Murray became the most successful British tennis player since Fred Perry and Joe Calzaghe destroyed even more legends of boxing. Even the perennial disappointment that is English football team have finally started to justify their multi-million pound salaries with the best-ever start to a qualifying campaign.

All of this takes us to the BBC Spots Personality of the Year award, the end of year bash celebrating the yearly sporting success of Britain’s greatest individuals. A mere two years ago, Zara Phillips received the award nobody deserved amidst what can only be described as mass apathy. This year there will be nothing of the sort. The stack of achievements in 2008 meant that this year’s award is the most hotly contested in the award’s prestigious history.

So, with such a plethora of brilliance, who deserves to win it? The make-up of the ten strong short-list is anybody’s guess but three names are cast iron certainties to be contenders; Lewis Hamilton, Rebecca Adlington and Chris Hoy. Their achievements this year are phenomenal and all of them can claim to be the world’s greatest in their discipline.

Having come so close last year, Lewis Hamilton became the youngest ever winner of the Formula One driver’s championship on its very last corner providing some pulsating driving throughout the year to deservedly take the title. Rebecca Adlington became the most successful British swimmer for 100 years with a double gold medal performance and a world record to boot in the 800m, along with a scintillating overtake in the last 50m in the 400m race. Then we have Chris Hoy, jewel in the crown of Team GB’s star cycling team, and a triple gold medal winner in Beijing to add to his gold from Athens in 2004. Only Sir Steve Redgrave with his five golds stands above him in British Olympic history.

These three certainly are the frontrunners, a glance at any of the betting odds will confirm that, but never have those at the back of the queue been quite so brilliant. Andy Murray shook off not only his bad attitude, but his own limitations to win two masters titles and reach the US Open final, defeating all of Federer, Djokovic and even Nadal along the way. Last year’s winner, Joe Calzaghe, added another chapter to his legacy, extending his unbeaten record to an incredible 46 fights, demolishing the legends that are Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Junior along the way. Even Britain’s only athletics gold medal winner, and indeed world and commonwealth champion, Christine Ohurogu, is well behind with the bookies. This should be her year, but there is so much talent around that she might as well not bother turning up to the awards.

These and others will make the list; Ben Ainslie, the dominating Olympic sailor, Rebecca Romero, who won gold in Beijing despite competing in a different sport to her previous Olympic victory, and even Nicole Cooke, the first cyclist ever to be both Olympic road race and world champion simultaneously. Yet despite this none of them are even in with a realistic hope. It is a fantastic year indeed, when someone as brilliantly bonkers (not to mention talented) as David Haye, a man who rips up the rulebook to take on the most ambitious of targets and win, isn’t even being mentioned.

It would help the decision somewhat if one of the three favourites could be a jerk or a bad loser, yet none of these three come even close to that. Adlington became the nation’s darling in the summer with her girl-next-door charm, infectious smile and pride in her home town of Mansfield; Hoy is pretty much the image of down to earth humility, while Hamilton is the world media darling; charming, polite and confident without a hint of arrogance.

Yet despite there being so little to choose between the top three, Lewis Hamilton is red hot favourite to take the award. Some people, naysayers frankly, have a bigger problem with this than if anybody else were to be made favourite. They point out that he lives in Geneva to avoid tax and that his chances of victory are contingent as much on him driving a competitive car as his ability, yet they fail to appreciate quite the level of his achievement. It is one thing to have a good car, quite another to beat Fernando Alonso in it. To all in the know, Hamilton has as much talent as anyone who has graced the sport; even Senna and Schuhmacher.

What sets him apart however, in what is otherwise an Olympic year, is that he is an icon of British sport worldwide. His talent, humility and close relationship with his family are emblems recognised across the globe. In any other year, the mass of sportsmen and women sitting behind him in the betting rankings would thoroughly deserve the title. This year however, the competition is just too hot.

All of those that make the top ten short-list are trailblazers in their sport, the pride of Britain, competing at the very highest level within their discipline. and succeeding. Yet what matters most is not who takes the Sports Personality award next month, but that it could deservedly go to so many people. Forget nitpicking; sit back and celebrate a fantastic year of sport for the British Isles.

 

Blues Riding

By
Lucy Thorp
-

How many hours does riding take out of your week?

We definitely take the title of the least hardcore Blues team! We try to cram all our training into the last few weeks before the competitions, particularly before our home match as we can work with the horses before hand. Training is very difficult with cost and travelling and it doesn’t make a great deal of difference since you never know what type of horse you will draw until the day. Horse riding is like riding a bike, you can not train for weeks and jump back on and it’ll not make a massive difference.

How is the season shaping up so far for the Blues?

The season hasn’t kicked off yet; the final teams have just been selected and are chomping at the bit ready to go. We have three teams competing in the BUCS championship and trophy leagues, hopefully this will be our year to make it to the nationals in both. Our first competition is on December the 3rd at Warwick and then they start coming thick and fast at the beginning of Hilary – wish us luck.

How is morale in the camp these days?

Team spirit is pretty high at the minute, but wait until it gets to those cold February mornings when, trust me, the last thing you fancy doing is going outside and sitting on a horse until your bum is numb and your fingers have turned a nasty shade of blue and are on the verge of dropping off – the freshers don’t know what they’ve let themselves in for. Then it’ll be up to this year’s team captain, Kat, to raise the spirits.

Have any great freshers stepped up to the team?

We have 6 freshers joining a team of 12 riders, so yes definitely. In particular Imogen Peck, St. Hilda’s fresher, who spent her gap year eventing with Australian rider Bill Levitt. Next term she plans to bring her horses closer to Oxford in time for the up and coming season.

Are you ever worried about the dangers of your sport?

Horses are very unpredictable and seriously strong and they also make mistakes which makes riding a very dangerous sport but I think it’s also what most of us love about it and makes it so exhilarating. I think it’s always in the back of your mind, but we definitely don’t let it stop us.

How do you fancy your Varsity chances?

Although I hate to admit it, Oxford has never won Varsity on record and Cambridge always has a very strong team. That said, we came frustratingly close last year with Oxford taking 1st and 4th places individually. I am feeling very optimistic about our chances this year; we have a really excellent team. I think this is probably the best Oxford team I have seen in the past 3 years, so fingers crossed!

 

Wadham push Trinity/LMH to the end

By
Tim Hanley
-

TRINITY/LMH 24 
WADHAM 17

Both sides had a point to prove coming into this season opener. This was especially true for Trinity/LMH, who have come down from the first division without having won a game. Wadham meanwhile were keen to prove that they could cut it against tougher opposition, but were unfortunate to be missing many of the starting lineup that had won them promotion. Nevertheless, this proved to be a spirited display of end-to-end rugby, which though scrappy at times made it clear that both sides will be competitive in this division.

Wadham’s lack of game-time together became quickly apparent as they allowed Trinity/LMH to take the initiative from the kick-off, openside flanker Doug Riddle making an early impression with a deep run into the Wadham half setting up the first scrum of the match. The superior power and experience of Trnity/LMH’s pack was immediately obvious as Wadham under pressure gave away an early penalty for feeding. Trinity/LMH opted for the corner, hoping to turn this early pressure into points. Eventually, over-exuberance at the breakdown set up a scrum from which the forwards drove towards the line, prop Ben Murray finally bowling over for the score. Back in the Wadham half, Trinity/LMH were penalised for not releasing, allowing the Wadham backline to show its potential by taking the penalty quickly. This enabled them to push into the Trinity/LMH half for the first time, only to be penalised for being offside. The pattern of the game established itself early, both sides producing promising passages of play only to knock on or concede penalties.

Sloppy hands in the Trinity/LMH backline gave Wadham a break as centre Will Spencer pounced on the ball to run in an easy try under the posts. The conversion was slotted by Wadham fly-half Harry Mayhew to put Wadham in the lead against the run of play.

Trinity/LMH responded with pressure straight from the restart to retain possession, building the phases and securing a five metre scrum. The dominant Trinity/LMH pack would not be denied, eventually driving forward number eight Will Mackintosh to touchdown. Wadham responded immediately (their teething problems a thing of the past) working the ball downfield and setting up good field position to release their backline and allow winger Dave Roberts to score in the corner.

The game had become a real contest, but Wadham’s discipline continued to let them down, ultimately gifting Trinity/LMH another scrum on the five metre which was once again driven over for a try.

A colossal hit from Trinity/LMH flanker Adam Barker late in the first half had injured one of the beleaguered Wadham front row who was now forced to leave the field. This forced uncontested scrums, but did little to tame the aggression of the second half, inhuman tackling from Wadham scrum half Josh Venner setting the tone. But Wadham’s indiscipline continued – the dubious legality of much of number eight Thomas Pascoe’s play particularly notable.

After winning a lineout Trinity/LMH were awarded a further penalty after the maul was illegally collapsed by an ELV-unused Wadham pack. The penalty was taken quickly, the ball driven over the line and the try awarded although clearly held up.

Incensed by this decision Wadham found another gear, a savage hit from replacement centre Dieter Iveson winning a penalty which was quickly taken by winger Michael Tam. And Wadham persevered – from a quick tap penalty they worked the ball through the hands to finally score through fullback Toby Mullins, putting Wadham within a converted try. Minutes later though, Trinity/LMH had the chance to put the game away with a penalty kick, but the ball skewed wide resulting in a frantic final ten minutes. Ultimately, however, Wadham were unable to keep the ball, and paid the price for their lack of self control, allowing Trinity/LMH to see out the game with confidence.

 

1...2,1222,1232,124...2,445Page 2,123 of 2,445

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy