A seven foot statue has been erected on the roof of Exeter College, despite it lacking planning permission.

The £250,000 sculpture by Antony Gormley must be removed if the college fails to get permission.

The Lord Mayor of Oxford, Susanna Pressel, called the situation “regrettable.”

However, Exeter’s Home Bursar, Eric Bennett, expressed his determination for the statue, given to the college by an anonymous donor, to remain on the rooftop. He said, “we’ll appeal if the permission isn’t granted and we’re convinced that we’re going to win.”

Bennett has denied that the college did not follow the correct procedures. He said, “We’ve done everything they told us to do.”

“We were given a timetable to keep to – the council officers gave it to us. However, the councilors changed their mind and decided that the matter should be handled by the councilors themselves. This caused the delay.”

Pressel said, “it’s not against the law to apply for permission retrospectively.”
But she confirmed that if the permission is not granted, the sculpture will have to be taken down. She added, “in practice the applicants may well appeal against any decision to refuse permission, leaving the sculpture (as Antony prefers to call it) in place until the appeal is decided.”

A student at Exeter commented on the situation, saying, “I think the worst thing possible would be if the council demands that the statue has to be taken down. It would be extremely embarrassing and humiliating for the college.
I don’t see what any of the fuss is about regarding planning permission. If Exeter wants to put something on its own roof then it should be allowed to. That you need permission to it is far to bureaucratic.”

Antony Gormley himself attended the sculpture’s unveiling on Sunday. He said, “I’m very pleased with how it has been put together and he’s [the iron-cast man] in very good company up there.”

He added, “There are some fine regal types on top of the Sheldonian, and various other statues there to keep him company.”

Ed Moores, Exeter’s JCR President described the sculpture as “fantastic”. He said, “It is a great achievement for the college to have some high-profile art.”

Controversy has engulfed the Balliol and St Hilda’s balls, forcing St Hilda’s to change their theme at the last minute.

The issue arose after Balliol’s team revealed that they were planning a “Midsummer Night’s Dream” theme for their ball, the same theme as St Hilda’s.

But whilst Balliol have gone ahead with their “Midsummer Night’s Dream” theme, Hilda’s have had to change their theme to “Temptations.”

The college’s Ball Committee President, Joy Tuffield, said her team had had no option but to “rework many of the details of the ball.”

She said she was giving Balliol the benefit of the doubt in assuming that the overlap had been accidental, although she felt that it was unlikely to have been a complete coincidence.

She said, “the only plausible explanation I can think of is that someone heard the theme in passing, had not committed it to memory, and once it came to brainstorming for themes it came creeping back from deep in their subconscious. Or at least I sincerely hope that was the case.”

Tuffield said that there were “no hard feelings” about and that the last-minute shock had “injected a bit of excitement in the whole process.”

Tuffield’s counterpart at Balliol, Ball Committee co-President Sasha Roupell, denied that the incident had been in any way intentional, saying “I can’t see how that would work to our advantage. If there had been any connection between the teams this wouldn’t have happened.”

She said she believed that the co-incidence could be explained by a general trend. “All of the themes this year do seem to be sort of fairytale based – Alice in Wonderland, Midsummer Night’s Dream and so on.”s

Roupell said she knew that St Hilda’s had changed their plans for the ball, and that Balliol intended to stick with the theme.

Some students seemed reluctant to believe that the identical themes could have been chosen by pure chance. One St Hilda’s student said “I’m not suggesting they stole our idea but maybe they heard from somewhere. Balliol should have checked round before they started printing stuff.”

A motion by St John’s College to give JCR reps an advantage in the housing ballot has been defeated after arousing strong opposition from the college.

St John’s JCR President Jason Keen proposed that JCR Reps who serve for two terms or more should be given priority in the room lottery. The president and secretary are already automatically placed at the top of the ballot.

Keen argued, “reps carry out duties crucial to the smooth running of our JCR, but many people don’t know the positions even exist and consequently they are often difficult to fill.”

He added that housing priority was “a means of revitalising the reps system.”
Ollie Willmott opposed the motion, calling it “grossly unfair.” He set up a Facebook group asking for “just a simple vote of NO.”

He argued, “we all contribute to college life in our own ways. We don’t all do this in order to gain a direct reward. Indeed, most people don’t need a reward to do something they feel is worthwhile.”

Rep positions at St John’s include “Charties Pimp” and “PRAT” alongside more well known ones such as “rag rep” and “ethnic minorities rep.”

Amin Hamzianpour also opposed, describing the proposed changes as “completely unfair.” He also noted, “reps don’t make an important contribution to the college.”

Other John’s students have supported Keen’s motion. One commented, “some rep positions have beem really hard to fill in the past and there is a need for an incentive.

“For example, the post of Academic facilities rep is difficult to fill year on year as it involves the time-consuming task of checking that all printers in college are equipped with paper and ink.”

Students agreed that the opportunity to obtain a better room would be a motivation. St John’s second year Amin Hamzianpour argued, “while you don’t have to do much to be a rep, getting one of the best rooms is like winning the lottery. The best rooms have showers, kitchens and other rooms attached to them.”

The proposed system was for Exec members to have points subtracted from their room ballot prior to the randomisation of the ballot. This would increase their likelihood of being allocated a good room in the third year as those with lower points are drawn first.

Engineer Malcolm Begg suggested “it could have a massive difference. Having two points taken off for being a rep could move you up twenty to thirty places.”
He supported the changes arguing, “it’s a good principle because it doesn’t cost the JCR anything. This is why accommodation benefits are a better idea than a meal.” The estimated cost per head at the annual JCR committee meal is £40.

Jason Keen denied that students would take up rep positions just for rooms, “I think people’s motivation is secondary compared to if they properly devote their time to duties that benefit their fellow JCR members.”

He added, “by putting rewards in place we would be able to expect more from our reps, rather than the current system where they have no incentive to do their jobs whatsoever.”

Willmott refuted this saying, “I have never known a rep to be fired for doing a bad job and in any case, as suggested, most require minimal effort.”
A representative for the St John’s accommodation office said, “the JCR and MCR ballot procedures are chosen by them.”

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.”