Filth bouncers have been accused of violence against students for the second time in two weeks, after a first year Christ Church student claimed he was roughly handled and bruised by security staff.The first incident occured on 8 February. The student, who wishes to remain anonymous, claims to have attempted to walk straight into the club with a group of friends, at which point a bouncer grabbed him by the neck and pushed him backwards. He was sent to the back of the queue, but on reaching the front he claims to have been assaulted by the bouncer. The student said, “The bouncer grabbed me and then quite deliberately moved his hand to hit me on the cheek.”He claims then to have complained to a second bouncer, who said, “Get out of here you slimy shit.”
The student said, “Maybe I asked for it the first time by attempting to walk straight into the club, but I then queued up, and when I spoke to the bouncer I was completely peaceful.” Although not badly injured, the student suffered light bruising the day after the incident. He chose not to complain to the manager.He admitted that he had been drinking but said, “I was by no means out of control. I had been to a restaurant with a group of friends and so we were all just in high spirits; we were ‘restaurant drunk.’“I think it’s really important that something should be done about this, as bouncers should be protecting people in the club and should not be allowed to abuse students for no reason.”
A week later, on 13 February, another student was involved in a similar incident. The fresher, also from Christ Church, claimed,  “The bouncer told me to leave; he then grabbed me and shoved me out of the club, slamming the door in my face.” The student waited until the end of the night to complain to the manager but says she was denied the chance.Last week Cherwell reported how a first year from Brasenose was left with a bloody nose after allegedly being hit by a bouncer outside Filth.However Stuart Kerley, the owner of Filth, claimed to be “unaware” of the incidents involving Christ Church students.He said, “Normally incidents occur when the students act like dicks; they nick stuff and they repeatedly try to come back into the club after being asked to leave. We are just doing our job in the way that the police and the Council say we should.”He added, “The majority of our clients are students and so it’s in our interests not to piss them off, but a lot of them do need to grow up and realise that just because they are students, this does not give them the right to act however they please.”by Sian Cox-Brooker

It saddened me to read the recent editorial, ‘Idea Idle’, as I feel entrepreneurship needs to be encouraged and not belittled.The Delboy model of enterprise is an unfair stereotype. Entrepreneurship is a rewarding though challenging career. The entrepreneurs I know are fixing real world problems, not ‘scamming pensioners and dodging taxes.’ Moreover, entrepreneurship has been shown to be an incredibly powerful way to institute social change and not a ‘blissful western, capitalist belief that good can be achieved by seeking a profit.’ Our two most recent speakers, John Bird and Sir Tom Hunter, show two very different and incredibly successful models of change. John Bird created the revolutionary social enterprise, The Big Issue, which has enabled and supported homeless people in getting themselves out of poverty. Sir Tom Hunter, on the other hand, made his fortune through retail, and plans to invest £1 billion in venture philanthropy. By using the rigorous methods of venture capitalists to ensure progress, Sir Tom hopes to improve education and aid third world development.Entrepreneurs care more about making a difference than making a profit. Yes, money is a huge motivation to work, both in large corporations where shareholders demand returns, and in start-ups where lack of money spells death of the project. But the difference for entrepreneurs is that the project is all important: the entrepreneurs I’ve met are driven by the desire to see their idea or vision actualised, whilst profit is seen more as a way of keeping tally of success.

So why do we run Idea Idol? I believe that it is really important that students at Oxford ask themselves, ‘Could I be an entrepreneur?’ Far too many graduates are lured by the money and lifestyle associated with comfortable graduate jobs such as banking and consultancy. The pay is good, but a banker is not going to fix the problems they themselves see as facing society or consumers, whereas entrepreneurs go out and do something about it. Oxford Entrepreneurs (OE) exists to support and encourage emerging entrepreneurs from Oxford. Our successes include five fully-funded start-ups, from Bright Green, who work in ethical recruiting, to Groupspaces, who help clubs and societies manage their members. The steps in setting up an enterprise are relatively straight-forward, but such steps can be incredibly difficult to take. OE tries to make the process a little easier, helping its members build up the momentum they need to run their ventures after graduation, and that was our motivation to run Idea Idol.Yes, there is a male dominance in entrepreneurship and this was reflected in the competition: over 75% of entrants were male. Encouraging women to become entrepreneurs, and the need to level out the numbers, is something of which I am very aware. It is not for want of role models.One need only look to one judge, Reshma Sohni, (Seedcamp) and one of last year’s winner, Jessica Mather-Hillon (Matoke Matoke) for inspiration. We are looking at ways to improve this situation, but are always open to proposals. If you have one yourself, please send it to [email protected].A final point. One of the winning ‘idle’ ideas you lambast as ‘milking the NHS for profit’, Altitude Medical, estimate they can save over 2,500 lives a year and tens of millions of pounds of NHS spending. In my opinion that makes them true Idea Idols.

Alasdair Bell is the President of Oxford Entrepreneurs.

Seventh week editorials have in the past been used to advocate a certain Presidential candidate over another. A year ago, this space was used to canvas votes for Dean Robson, who was standing as something of a wild card against Luke Tryl. Acknowledging that the odds were stacked against him, we did at least note that “if it were not for Robson, the Presidential contest might have been, rather embarrassingly, a one horse race.”The intervening year has seen our Union go through strength to strength: from Tryl to tribunal. From attracting a media circus over ‘Holocaust deniers’, to debating the rights to existence of USA and Israel. Calm, measured, mature debates all.On second thoughts, let’s turn to one presidential election that really does matter, and announce that Cherwell is throwing its full weight and prodigious influence behind Barack Obama. Part rock star, part global phenomenon, Obama is a once-in-a-generation politician embodying the spirit of a nation at a key moment of change.The American presidency, as any prelims politics student will tell you, is heavily constrained by the checks, balances and division of powers enshrined by the US Constitution. Academic analysis of a president’s record invariably brands a presidency as failing to meet its expectations and promise. Perhaps this makes it all the more dangerous to vote for a man who has cultivated a messianic following over the last few months.Yet this is precisely why America should put its trust in Obama’s eloquent call for change, even if it risks being empty. Because it is those who can use the soft power of the presidency, the ability to make grand speeches that inspire people to come together, who will actually be able to pass legislation and engender change when in power.The Economist recently described the best presidents as “like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making.” All Presidents surround themselves with a crack team of first-rate minds but only the best can take this ideas and run with them. Only the best can build a consensus and rise above faction to achieve success.Maybe there is some advice in there for Josh Roche?

 Students who face financial hardship are not applying for college bursaries because they are put off by complicated application forms or assume they will not be eligible, a Cherwell investigation has revealed. Despite efforts by all colleges to help students in financial difficulties, undergraduates continue to report cases of severe hardship, claiming they are not made sufficiently aware of the grants that colleges have to support them.A student from St Edmund Hall, who wished to remain anonymous, said that she had been forced to live on £10 for four weeks and to rely on assistance from close friends because she was unaware of the support available. She said, “I have been in difficulty during my time here. It changes from week to week but at one point I had to get by on ten pounds for four weeks … I have a really close group of friends and we help each other out when one of us can’t pay for things. “I didn’t know about the college hardship bursaries until the bursar told me about them. It was not clear how I was supposed to get one. I did not know where to go or what to do,” she said.A student from Merton, who also asked not to be named, was aware of the financial assistance offered by his college, but said he felt that relying on the support would deprive him of independence.He said, “I don’t get funding from college, but am fairly sure I qualify for it. I’ve been holding off on applying in case of an ‘emergency’ and also out of pride – getting a private loan is ridiculously expensive… but I like the sense of independence. That said, the constraints of a private loan are a funny kind of independence.”He added, “I worked during the holidays last year, but found that it was a serious strain on my studies and my energy and also that I didn’t earn enough to lead a normal [and] comfortable life (financially).”All students who apply to the university are considered for an Oxford Opportunity bursary, a grant given by the central university body to students from lower-income backgrounds. In addition, most colleges offer hardship bursaries for any students who fall into unexpected financial difficulties.But Martin McCluskey, OUSU president, said the whole system needed to be made more transparent.“The University offers hardship funds, like the Access to Learning fund, but a lot of people don’t know they exist. They are not widely publicised. “Something needs to be done to make students more aware of the opportunities available for financial assistance” he added.Students have also said they feel discouraged from applying for hardship grants because of complicated application forms and the stigma that they will be seen as the poorest.Martin McCluskey explained, “At the college level there is a lot of variation. Sometimes students are put off because of the language attached to support funds … The name ‘Hardship bursary’ makes it sound like the funds are only for people who are really scraping the barrel, where as ‘financial assistance’ makes it seem more accessible.”A spokesperson for Oxford made the following statement:“The University and its colleges are committed to supporting stu dents wherever possible. It is in everybody’s interest to publicise available support as widely as possible. It is down to the colleges to adopt the system that works best for them in their individual environment.”by Michael Sweeney

2/5 If you are expecting yet another hilarious American wedding comedy á la My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Wedding Singer, you will be disappointed. Margot at the Wedding, written and directed by Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale) has nothing to do with two happy people declaring their love at the altar. The various lovers in this film are middle-aged, miserable and take anti-depressants to make it through somehow. Margot (Nicole Kidman) is a successful writer from New York and her marriage is crumbling. Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh), her free-spirited sister, is about to wed an unemployed artist Malcom (Jack Black) – the best example of a pathetic loser. Margot immediately disapproves of her sister’s choice, starts undermining their relationship and herself starts an affair with a neighbour. Margot’s son Claude (Zane Pais) is surprisingly mature for his age and by far the most interesting character. In the end he turns out to be the most stable and reasonable of all the adults with their failed lives. He influences Margot to make a decision, which comes as a great surprise. Actually, there is no plot. The film is a sequence of scenes, in which different episodes reveal yet another aspect of the dysfunctional relations the family suffers from. There is something for everyone: adultery, rivalry between siblings, fights between puberty stricken boys, random horror-style killing of animals and a hint of paedophilia.The technical set-up of the film gives you the feeling of intruding on each character’s personal problems. The make up is minimalist; hand-held camera and natural lighting make you believe you are an immediate bystander. It really is painful to watch this family interact.But most of all, throughout the film, you will keep wondering: what is Nicole Kidman, easily the most glamorous actress of our times, doing in this low budget, painful film where in the end there is not even a wedding? Now I’ve ruined it for you. By Marina Zarubin

As Sweeny Todd once said, ‘There’s a hole in the world like a great black pit/and it’s filled with people who are full of shit.’ My inference faculties tell me that he was, in the aforementioned utterance, referring to Cherwell offices. What goes on there might be described as ‘debauched’ if I didn’t find that word repulsive. My serving boy has just informed me that, in a sick reader-seeking stunt, the paper is introducing ‘epileptic fit college’, in which votes are cast on which seizures are most spectacular. This, and many other things like it, lead me to enforce the censorship of the Cherwell newspaper. My very reliable sources inform me that this would not be the first time such a feat has been attempted, and I’m sure with me behind the cause then I’ll finally get some peace.Let’s be straight here, I am an open minded man and have no problem with people writing. However, the approach of this publication seems rotten to the tummy and it must be done away with. For starters, this whole Vice-chancellor feature means that every week someone new is getting into my imaginings and rummaging around looking for things to write about. It is highly disturbing as I try to draft legislation to make Oxford work good. In adjoinment, the news section involves going out and about and telling people what’s happening here and now. What’s with all this up to date bullshit?Everyone knows the ’40s are where it’s at, the focus should be on what was happening then. That time Archibald chewed through a bus…These words on paper then make their way into student rooms in colleges where they are read and discussed by all. This cycle of writing and talking goes round and round getting deeper and deeper until eventually no one is willing to join the army. The journalists stroll about the town with their clipboards and satchels like they’re real people. It’s unnatural, like a toddler eating sushi. I will set about banning this behaviour and making them play with etch-a-sketch instead and swapping their tight little pants for all in ones.I was reading the text on a bargain bucket and Colonel Sanders said he had a dream, he dreams of a world where people go about their business eating wholesome food and enjoying the simple things in life. That sums up perfectly my vision of Oxford, in fact I’m pretty pissed off I didn’t whip that epithet out when giving my little speech to try and make all the ‘profs’ vote Hood. I want the little guys here to do their cute little academic stuff in the days and spend the nights feeding the ducks. These ideas that they publish are twisted and dangerous. No man under forty has thoughts capable of being set to ink. The Greeks had it right- democracy is only for the wrinkly. These little ones need their wings clipping for their own good. Kids: you’re young: live life,  don’t report it.
by Jack Marley-Payne

4/5 You would be forgiven for thinking that the ‘rom com’ has had its day but The Accidental Husband is a little gem. The film is a collaboration between several writers, but Uma Thurman initially began thinking about it ten years ago when she first had the idea of writing a comedy. Although famous for her roles in Tarantino’s films Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, she has long wanted to expand her range to comedy and, in The Accidental Husband, she proves that she has successfully made that transition.The plot sounds somewhat unrealistic. It all centres on Dr. Emma Lloyd (Thurman), a radio love advice guru who helps New Yorkers with affairs of the heart and is author of the book ‘R.E.A.L Love’. She is about to marry her partner Richard (Colin Firth) when she discovers that there is a rather serious complication – she is already married. I want to say hilarity ensues but I found myself caring about the emotional entanglements of the characters amidst the more humorous episodes. Although the plot is flawed at some moments, and at others verges on the ridiculous, there are moments of emotional heart-tugging too.The cohesion between the leading actors is superb and they are helped by a very strong supporting cast including brilliant performances from Isabella Rossellini and Sam Shepard.Even for those who think they have had enough ‘Mr Darcy’, Firth does not disappoint. Despite becoming famous for playing ‘the quintessential English gentleman’, Firth is sick of being typecast in these roles. As he assured me himself at the press conference, he doesn’t really believe that such a man exists or that he is particularly worthy of that title. Those who have come to expect this stereotype will be reassured in The Accidental Husband, where Firth plays Richard with many quirky features, including a penchant for ‘binge eating’ at times of stress.However, just in case Firth is no longer your cup of tea, newcomer Jeffrey Dean Morgan is equally dashing as New York fireman Patrick, the other love interest in the film. Currently seen opposite Hilary Swank in P.S. I Love You, Morgan is a rising celebrity heart-throb but poignantly portrays his character here.I particularly recommend the film to those, like myself, who would normally run a mile from anything where the words ‘romantic’ and ‘comedy’ appear together: It manages to combine both realistic and farcical situations. Thurman is the most adept at offering both these things – pulling off both subtle comedy and slapstick (there is a very amusing ‘cake eating’ scene). The comedy, romance, and yes, Firth as an icon, all work harmoniously in this film. Most of all The Accidental Husband disproves the misguided assumption that American comedy does not know how to do irony or sharp wit.By Rebecca Cooper

The poster says it all. The symbol is the word ‘capital’ being crushed inside a hammer. The slogan: ‘We’ll win the final battle.’ The combination of red and black and large, vibrant lettering is the sign of a campaign that means business. Pictured are black 60s icons from Jimi Hendrix to Malcolm X. There’s a photo of Che Guevara, and another one of Lenin. In one shot, Marx, Engels and Lenin stand proudly, under the slogan: ‘Everyone’s talking about the weather. We’re not.’ The final man pictured is Rudi Dutschke, the voice of the German Left, whose death in 1979, eleven years after surviving an assassination attempt, made him into the martyr of the political revolutionaries.The selection of symbols on the poster advertising this May’s ‘1968 Congress’ is one usually associated with the past — a failed attempt at a revolution. But 40 years after the events of 1968, in Europe’s home of student activism, Germany, the Left are trying to rekindle the spirit. Die Linke (‘The Left’), Germany’s eight-month-old hardline socialist party (they’re closet communists, in reality), has already won seats in four state parliaments in western Germany, as well as occupying 8% of  the federal parliament in Berlin.And the student wing is all the rage. Covering almost every inch of free placard space inside the University of Frankfurt are the slips of paper advertising the conference in Berlin, which aims to bring the ramifications of 1968 into the limelight. At the time of writing, 48 speakers were confirmed, from Marxist academics to contemporary historians. The spirit of 1968 is on its way back.It was the year that saw a new left-wing politics come to Europe. The global ‘liberation’ movement — ranging from the black civil rights campaign in the US to the protests against the Vietnam War — coincided with an uprising in Czechoslovakia in favour of liberalisation, a student revolt in France that led to the fall of Charles de Gaulle’s government and a general shift in cultural values. Few places were influenced more than Germany, where the term ‘‘68er’ is used to define an entire generation captured by the political and social transition.Jan Schalauske, a student activist who ran for Die Linke in January’s state elections in Hesse, says the 1968 movement in Germany was down to the establishment’s inability to break with its fascist past, plus a capitalist society that, in truth, limited individual freedom. ‘Many people who played a role in the Nazi regime were placed in important positions in the Federal Republic,’ he says. ‘And, with the economic miracle, post-war reconstruction and a heavily regulated society, people hardly had any room to move and develop their own personality.’The result of this was an uprising that most British student unions would die for. But the consequences of 1968 were played out more than just in the debating chamber. The anti-capitalist terrorist movement that started in that year and died out finally in the 1990s dominates perceptions of the generation, and still plagues the German Left. Die Linke is under permanent surveillance by the state, thanks to a law protecting the constitution that places any political groups considered extremist as a potential threat to democracy. It all started in April 1968, when a pair of left-wing extremists set fire to two department stores in Frankfurt. In the 30-year history of Germany’s far-left extremist wing that followed, groups kidnapped and killed an employers’ union head, worked with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to hijack a Lufthansa plane, and, in the notorious operation of 1976, hijacked an Air France flight from Tel Aviv and redirected it to Uganda. Here they singled out 105 Israelis and French Jews on board, who they threatened to kill. And when the Palestinian organisation Black September murdered eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics of 1972, Ulrike Meinhof co-authored a document praising the act.The German Left, therefore, has a difficult history to grapple with if it’s going to regain recognition. But insanely, it seems to be doing little grappling. Die Linke has no formal manifesto — just ‘a few open questions’, according to Schalauske — so they have little policy of substance to counteract anything other than what the faction is already associated with. Schalauske, who is helping run the 1968 congress in May, admits that the terror campaign was wrong but finds it ‘wrong to limit 1968 to a discussion of terrorism’.It’s perhaps no wonder that Die Linke, despite its electoral success, is finding it difficult getting accepted by the political establishment. The Social Democrat Party would easily form a ruling majority if it accepted a coalition with the far-left party, but refuses to do this and it seems would rather stay in opposition. But the Social Democrats are split over their views of Die Linke. Klaus Wowereit, the Mayor of Berlin, considered a future candidate for Chancellor, has already formed a coalition with Die Linke in the city, and, according to leading pollster Professor Klaus Kocks, such a coalition on a national level would get Wowereit into power in the Bundestag at the next election. The question is whether they want to put power ahead of a potential shift to the left, and whether the move would put off Social Democrat voters. Die Linke’s members claim to be nothing more than social democrats themselves, but everything about it — the communist credentials of its leader, Lothar Bisky, Marxist intellectual Alex Callinicos’ praise of it as a ‘profound challenge to social democracy’, the pictures of Marx and Stalin on the posters — suggests otherwise.Nevertheless, the Left looks likely only to increase its popularity. A poll last week put it as the top party in eastern Germany, ahead of the mainstream Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. The West, on the other hand, is a very different place from the country it was 30 years ago in the aftermath of the economic miracle. The economy has still not recovered from reunification. Social cohesion is abysmal, Turks live in fear of racially aggravated violence, recognisable Jews can’t safely walk in parts of many cities without danger of attack, and Germany is now one of Europe’s biggest Al-Qaeda hotbeds. Voters are turning to the extremes, with the far-right neo-Nazis and Republicans, as well as the far-left Party for Social Equality, also active. Complete realisation of the ideals that defined 1968 might be beyond reach, but the German Left of that era is still alive, and their goal may be more attainable than some people think.
by Joshua Freedman

Government proposals to introduce new taxes for non-domicile workers living in the UK has created concern among foreign academics at Oxford.Under the new system, currently being championed by the Chancellor, Alastair Darling, non-domiciled residents would have to pay tax to the UK government on their offshore income unless they agree to an annual levy of £30,000.The proposals have caused anxiety in the academic community as critics of the new tax system have argued that it could drive foreign academics back to their home countries, making it harder for university faculties to secure funding and donations from international sources. Oxford’s pool of foreign academics have responded to the news with mixed reactions. Arietta Papaconstantinou, from the Faculty of Oriental Studies, said,“There are number of academics here who come in after having completed their doctorates abroad, so this legislation would certainly affect us.“There have already been problems with this system [non-domicile taxation] in French universities, where  we saw people running from academic bases [after taxes were increased].“This legislation would be very bad for visiting Fellows in the colleges, most of whom are on paid sabbatical leave,” she added.Professor John Muellbauer said that there would be “serious implications for non-domiciles” were the government’s proposals to be introduced.“I imagine there would be some people who would be badly affected by [this tax]. I’d be most worried about the implications for teaching at Oxford, [it] being an international university.”Professor Peyton Young, James Meade Professor of Economics, is an American working at Oxford. He said, “I moved to Britain with the expectation of [tax] arrangements staying the same. It would be a nasty surprise to have the law changed so suddenly and without much thought.”A report in the Financial Times of the 21st February included comments from Julian Birkinshaw, Deputy Dean of the London Business School, who expressed concern that the tax proposals would damage the international composition of academics in the UK. But the report was quickly followed by the publication of a letter from Christopher Joubert, who disagreed with the opinion that the London Business School would be adversely affected by any non-dom taxation.“As an alumnus of the London Business School I am embarrassed by Julian Birkinshaw’s attempt to jump on the non-dom bandwagon by arguing that the school’s standing is threatened by the effect of the proposed taxation arrangements on overseas staff […] The school should be paying its staff post-tax salaries of a level sufficient to attract and retain them, irrespective of their tax status.”Knick Harley, Professor of Economic History at Oxford added, “I doubt it will have any major impact. It certainly didn’t factor in my decision when I took up my post here.“[The proposals] could have an affect if they change the position of donors who might become disenamoured with the UK.”The tax proposals have faced a spate of criticism from the national media. The latest round of debate has focused on the possibility that universities will be short-changed if wealthy non-dom donors decide to leave the country and take their financial support with them.Alastair Darling is expected to unveil the proposals in full as part of his budget next month.Non-Domiciles explainedDaniel M. Feingold
Strategic Tax Planning‘Domicile’ is a legal term which indicates where an individual’s permanent home is located and thereby which national law their personal affairs are subjected to.Someone can claim non-domcile status if their permanent home is not the country in which they are currently working or living.As such, under current legislation, non-domiciles are only liable to be taxed on sources of income and capital gain which they bring into the UK from outside.Assets which remain in their home countries, however, are untouched. The chancellor’s proposals would mean that non-domiciles who have lived in the UK for more than seven tax years would have to face paying a tax on their offshore assets or an annual levy of £30,000.The people who are really going to be affected by this are the very wealthy or the super-rich, who will be able to pay the £30,000 annually as a cheaper option than paying tax.For academics, the real concern is if such welathy people decide to re-locate away from institutions like Oxford and therefore feel less inclined to support or provide donations to the university.”Cherwell News Team