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.”

Sixty students were barred from the OUCA elections on Wednesday after a last-minute decision by the returning officer prevented new members from voting.

According to OUCA members, the sharp increase around election time is due to students signing up to the society in order to vote for their friends.

Candidate for the presidency Josefin Malmqvist said she was concerned by the decision. She and other candidates were only informed of the move the day before the elections.

She said she knew new members who are “very upset” that they will now not be eligible to vote. “They want to have their say,” she said. “I think it’s a shame.”

Returning officer David Neale told officer candidates by email that any student who joined the Association after Monday would not be allowed to take part in the elections. He cited a rule which bars any student from taking part in the ballot if they register after nominations.

No new member was eligible to vote in the election, unless his name was read out at Council in 6th week or before. Delays in receiving forms meant that some members who joined before Monday would also be barred on a technicality.

Opposing candidate Alex Elias won the election in results announced on Wednesday. He expressed delight at his victory but refused to comment on the electoral issues. He said, “I’m absolutely thrilled. I had a very worthy opponent.”

One OUCA member, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed his disapproval over the decision. “Considering most people will have bought a membership – £15 – at this time to vote for their friends in the election, it’s a bit sub-prime,” he said.

He acknowledged that it was widespread for candidates to buy memberships for their friends just before the elections so they could vote for them. “Everybody known it goes on,” he said.

Another member agreed, saying, “it’s what candidates tend to do.”

The member also expressed concern that the returning officer had only informed the candidates rather than the students who were barred from the elections.

“[Neale] hasn’t announced to the membership that the new members won’t be able to vote, instead restricting his comments to officer candidates. Presumably people will turn up on the day, unaware that they have been barred,” he said.

The elections normally take place in eighth week but were moved to seventh this term, leading to confusion over when the cut-off date would be for new members.

Members predict that the new cut-off date will be most damaging for Malmqvist in the contest for the presidency against current treasurer Alex Elias. “The move has tipped the balance towards the treasurer candidate,” said one OUCA member. “She thought the termly meeting would be the cut off date so she carried on registering people.”

Malmqvist condemned the decision, but denied that the move to bar new members would disadvantage her. “I can only express a form of concern that members who are interested in the association, who wanted to join and take part in the elections now can’t do so.”

She admitted that one or two of her friends were among the recently-registered members, but claimed, “we always have a large increase in members before OUCA elections.”

Ben Lyons, secretary of the Oxford University Labour Club said he was surprised by the controversy surrounding the decision. “It is rather surprising that a students’ organisation which is basically just an excuse for drinking and mild prejudice should go to such lengths to manage their elections,” he said in a statement.

He added, “in contrast…we’re seriously involved in Oxford politics, hosting great speakers and taking an active role in our constituency.”

The dean of Wadham College has told a student union liaison meeting that he is determined to end the college’s annual Queer Bops.

Paul Martin circulated a document before the meeting slamming Queer Bop for drunkenness and saying it posed a risk to the college’s finances and reputation.

His conclusion stated that “we should not continue with the event in its current form , or with small changes: no further Queer Bops should occur.”

Martin’s proposal accused the annual event of posing “a significant reputational risk to the college”, saying it was “implicit in the current version of the event to push against the boundaries of acceptability”, citing an incident last year when organisors attempted to book strippers.

The document also raised fears that the college could be held liable for destruction or injury caused by Queer Bop revellers. Martins said he understood that “the Finance Bursar believes that future Queer Bops would be uninsurable”.

At the subsequent liaison meeting members of Wadham’s SCR raised the issue of a recent report from security company employed at the event which said an serious incident was highly probable.

“The fundamental problem here”, Martin wrote, “is excessive drunkenness, both in degree and in numbers, which overwhelms what the college can possibly do to contain the consequences.”

At the Wadham student liaison meeting on Wednesday, he stressed that “there are events that are just unacceptable, that are always going to be unacceptable.”

Martin’s suggestion has met with outrage from students.

The suggestion that the Queer Bop should be ended has met with outraged responses from students. Gemma Maxwell, a Wadham student who created a Facebook group to oppose the proposal, said she felt that the response from students had been “a general feeling of anger,” adding that there was “a definite feeling that the college had gone too far.”

She added that the Bop is “a massive part” to Wadham’s image as a “liberal and progressive institution” and “helps Oxford break away from its stereotypical image of being stagnant and boring.”

Members of Wadham’s gay community also voiced agreement with Maxwell’s statement. One first year student said, “It’s true that Queer Bop may have changed since the days it was actively concerned with gay rights. But it is still a great party and a unique selling point of Wadham. People can get drunk and/or rowdy at any bop, but none of the others have been singled out in this way. It would be a real shame if a college so celebrated for its tolerance ended up cancelling a party which promotes queer culture.”

“The gay scene in Oxford is pretty dire, and in a small way queerbop makes up for this.”

Another undergraduate said “It’s part of what Wadham’s about”.

Maxwell said she accepted that there were issues with the Queer Bop as is existed, “namely its size”. However, she claimed that the dean’s response is “just disproportionate”, adding that . However, she claimed, these were already being solved and that in recent years, the bop has been ” much more controlled than in previous years.”

Wednesday’s liaison meeting failed to come to a concrete agreement on the future of Queer Bops, with SU leaders requesting more time to discuss the matter with students.

Martin said he was determined to resolve the issue before next year, when he was due to go on leave. “It would fall to my successor to try to deal with Queer Bop proposals for MT 2010. I do not think it would be fair to hand off that responsibility when I have come to the view that it is not responsible for the college to allow this event to continue in anything like its current form.”

Wadham Warden Neil Chalmers claimed his college was still keen to promote tolerance for LGBT students, saying they were “having cordial and constructive discussions with Wadham’s SU officers about how best to celebrate diversity in sexuality and to raise awareness of LGBT issues.”

Queer Bop is traditionally the climax of Wadham’s Queer Week, held in the sixth week of Michaelmas. The event was originally a protest against Section 28, an amendment to the Local Government Act which banned schools from “promoting homosexuality”.

A series of violent incidents at the Kukui nightclub have led the council to impose more stringent licensing conditions on the club.

Police ordered a licence review of the club after 22 crimes were reported in just six months, including two “glassing” attacks in November.

The Oxford City Council’s licensing sub-committee enforced conditions including replacing drinking glasses with plastic ones, increasing the number of door staff to seven every night and improving cloakroom security.
The Council also ordered club managers to establish a search and queue management policy, set up an incident log book, train staff to deal with drunk or underage clubbers and ensure all security staff wear high-visibility jackets.

The Council refused the police’s request to reduce the club’s capacity from 700 to 550, during a hearing at the Town Hall on Thursday.
Committee chairman John Goddard said, “this new management has, for whatever reason, got off to a bad start.”

“We, as the licensing authority, do not want any repetition of this record of incidents over the last few months. Incidents of glassings are extremely damaging not only to the reputation of the premises but the individuals concerned. They will be scarred for life and it is entirely unacceptable.”

In January, the police were called after 100 clubgoers attempted to surge into the club.
The hearing was told that an emergency radio link to police used by Kukui was stolen last year and not reported.

The licensing co-ordinator for Oxfordshire Police, Tony Cope, said, “we hope the improvements will help the premises stay out of the limelight and settle down to what they should be doing.”

“It has always been a case of working together to get to a situation where incidents are minimal and it is a safe place where people can enjoy themselves.”

However, Stuart Kerley, the manager of Kukui denied the club had experienced numerous violent incidents and said the alleged reports of theft were actually cases of lost property.

He added, “this has painted a very wrong picture of the premises and what we are trying to do. We have massive complimentary national press coverage and a management team with 50 or 60 years’ experience. The perception painted is very wrong.”

Several students have expressed support for the new licensing conditions.

Jerome Mayaud, a Worcester first-year student said, “The conditions are a good move towards unruly behaviour which actually just ruins a night out.”

Elen Roberts, a St-Anne’s student said, “to be honest I never found Kukui very ‘violent’ when I went there. However if the number of violent incidents are really that high, then the council is wise to enforce security measures.”

The manager has 21 days to appeal against the new licensing conditions.