The Principal and Bursar of St Anne’s College came under fire from students angry over the lack of heating in a College accommodation block. On Sunday’s JCR meeting, students demanded to know if they would be financially compensated  after three out of four boilers failed in the Ruth Deech building, which left them without heating in noughth week .Additionally a burst pipe flooded much of the first floor of the building. The College Domestic Bursar, Martin Jackson, explained, “We’ve suffered a whole series of boiler failures over the Christmas period. That wasn’t something I expected.” In noughth week Jackson emailed St Anne’s students to say that they were experiencing problems but that the system would be fixed by Friday. However five days later on 14 January, he emailed students again, saying, “The part needed to revive three of the four boilers is not available in this country and is being sent from Germany.” He reassured students that the College was “examining urgent alternative sources of heat”. Pru Buxton, a second year living in the Ruth Deech building, first raised the issue with the College. She said that assurances that the heating would be fixed had prompted her not to bring her own heater and that she had been inconvenienced by the matter. 80 electric heaters were then bought and distributed to the students living in the Ruth Deech building. However it later emerged that 18 conference guests were moved out of their non-heated rooms and offered alternative accommodation whereas students were not.In response to this revelation, Jackson told the common room, “That particular group had paid a very large amount of money and we would be in breach of contact if we did not provide those facilities.”
St Anne’s JCR President Amaru Villanueva Rance said, “We aren’t considering accusing the College staff of negligence as we don’t think this is the issue. Going down this route would damage our relations with them and would be ultimately unproductive. “We are satisfied that they have dealt with the issue of repairing the boilers as best they could. We are trying to look at our tenancy agreements to see what students are legally entitled to in terms of compensation. To this effect, we will seek legal advice from OUSU and the Citizens Advice Bureau, as we believe liability falls on the College.”

Eithne Bradley defends Hugh Grant’s acting talentPretty much any block-busting British film of the last decade will have featured one man: the wonderful, fluttery-eyed Hugh John Mungo Grant. Many people, the majority of them male, have some kind of in-built allergy to Hugh. A friend pointed out his undeniable slight squint. Huge swathes of the population cannot successfully identify any differences between his film roles. His stammer causes violent reactions in a few unlucky souls. However, he still manages to get work and, crucially, people go and watch his films. Who hasn’t seen Notting Hill? Who didn’t lie, overstuffed with mince pies, in front of Love Actually on Christmas Day? In spite of all this supposed antipathy towards him, thousands of people, every year, flock to his films. Therefore, there must exist a deep undercurrent of ashamed devotion to the quintessential floppy-haired Englishman, because he is, in fact, a gifted actor.
Take, for example, his performance in Bridget Jones. How does he manage to be so unpleasant and yet so alluring at the same time? His shaded blue eyes pin Bridget to the spot, and his endlessly entertaining personality utterly eclipses that of stolid Mark Darcy. Nobody lies awake dreaming of the worthy human rights lawyer. They fantasise about the thoroughly immoral ravishing of a very bad man. Julia Roberts didn’t stand a chance in Notting Hill, as his lovable loser character exudes all the charm of a fairytale prince.
It may be true that he hasn’t taken on many serious roles. But comedy is arguably a finer art than ‘serious’ acting: if jokes fall flat, so does the actor’s career. It is a credit to Hugh that he has played to his own strengths for so long. And what British film would be complete without him? As soon as his features appear on screen, the viewer settles into his or her comfort zone: it’s reassuring. You won’t be frightened senseless. People’s feelings may be hurt, but only temporarily. And you’ll watch most of it with a little smile on your face, happy and safe in the gentle glow of a British romantic comedy.
Perhaps the man himself puts it best: ‘I’ve never been tempted to do the part where I cry or get AIDS or save some people from a concentration camp just to get good reviews. I genuinely believe that comedy acting, light comedy acting, is as hard, if not harder, than serious acting, and it genuinely doesn’t bother me that all the prizes and the good reviews automatically by knee-jerk reaction go to the deepest, darkest, most serious performances and parts. It makes me laugh.’

The Oxford Union became the focus of international attention once again last Thursday after a controversial guest speaker decided to change sides mid-way through a debate on Israel.Professor Ted Honderich, asked to propose the motion “This House believes that the state of Israel has a right to exist”, crossed over to the Opposition bench muttering, “I can’t do this any more.” The incident followed controversy concerning the speakers invited, with allegations that both Honderich, Professor of Philosophy at UCL, and fellow member of the Proposition Norman Finkelstein had previously spoken out against the state of Israel. Professor Honderich defended his actions and criticised the Oxford Union, saying, “The debate was on a motion that obviously was vague and ambiguous- and thus had both that obvious shortcoming and also the recommendation of allowing speakers to address all the main issues. In effect the supporters of the motion could speak either for the right to exist of the original state of Israel in roughly its 1948 extent and nature, what can be called the Zionist state, or for the post-1967 state of Israel, the neo-Zionist state. The same comments apply to the opponents of the motion. They could be against the Zionist state, or the Neo- Zionist state, or leave the matter unclear.”He added, “I was saddened by the want of clarity of the debate, and in particular, by the want of clarity by the initial undergraduate speaker [Jessica Prince] on our side. In fact I eventually got very annoyed by her rush of mere debater’s stuff and her endless attempts to interrupt. She could be taken as supporting the neo-Zionist state of Israel…Being annoyed to be identified with that barbarism, and inane comments on its behalf, I crossed the Floor.”However Prince rebuked these comments, saying, “I’m sorry that Professor Honderich was not sufficiently informed of the format or purpose of Thursday night debates at the Oxford Union. As the first Proposition speaker it was my duty in the debate, regardless of my own personal beliefs, to make a strong case for the state of Israel, and that is what I attempted to do. I apologize if this offended or confused him.”She added, “Both myself and the first Opposition speaker (Lewis Turner) offered questions to the other side; it was our duty to do so, and I thought it made the debate more dynamic. Upon further reflection of his own views, perhaps Professor Honderich should not have chosen to speak in Proposition in the first place, and instead given a speech from Opposition benches.”Further criticism of the format of the debate came from a number of students and organisations. Phil Rosenberg, a Wadham finalist in Hebrew and Judaic studies, attended the debate wearing the Palestinian and Israeli flags. He said, “To have two people who are against the state of Israel proposing the motion is ridiculous. Those who thought that the debate was ‘skewed’ and protested were proved entirely correct: Honderich visibly changed sides in the middle whilst Finkelstein voted against his own, deliberately lacklustre argument.” Jewish Society President Gabriel Martindale also expressed anger, saying, “On a personal level I think that the choice of motion was a disgrace, the choice of speakers was silly and immature and I would like to say this is not what I would expect of an institution such as the Oxford Union but, frankly, it’s exactly what I’ve come to expect.” Some national organisations were also scathing with Gavin Gross, Director of Public Affairs for the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, describing the whole thing as a “farce”. He said, “A serious debate consists of two panels of speakers with opposing viewpoints. In this case, all four speakers were united in their extreme criticism of Israel. Norman Finkelstein expressed support for Hizbollah during its war against Israel. Asking him to debate in favour of Israel is like selecting Nelson Mandela to support a motion passing South African apartheid.” Jon Benjamin, Chief Executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, commented, “The Oxford Union has shown quite clearly that it is more interested in sensationalism than constructive debate…This ridiculous spectacle, where those arguing both for and against a Proposition are all of the same view and in the event were so interchangeable that they swapped sides in the debate, demonstrates how low this once venerable institution has stooped.”Finkelstein voted against the motion he had proposed at the end of the debate. When asked to confirm whether his personal views were the opposite of what he argued during the debate, Finkelstein said, “Your personal views are irrelevant when discussing such a topic… My personal views are beside the point. The goal must be to find a common set of principles that can be applied to both sides.”
Oxford Union President, Emily Partington, was unavailable to comment.by Katherine Hall and Sangwon Yoon 

4/51 February
Just to be clear: this is not a film for everybody. It’s not sensational, it’s not cult, it probably won’t be a box office smash. Watching it through cynical eyes could make the story line a little too soppy, the dialogue somewhat clichéd, the idea of the fortunate helping the not-so-fortunate redundant, and the tale of the recovering drug addict outdated. Del Toro is playing his favourite type-cast loser, and no-one likes films about families these days anyway. Plus, Halle Berry has never really done it for me.
All that aside, this is a poignant and subtly moving film about coping with the loss, the love and the legacy the dead leave behind them. When Brian (David Duchovny) dies a “hero, in a twisted fucked up way”, he leaves behind two children, his wife Audrey (Halle Berry) and his best friend Jerry (Benicio Del Toro); together, they must find a way to live in the space he left behind. It’s a film about human strength, the power of compassion, the reality of addiction, and R2-D2. The photography is sensitive and detailed; the camera pushes up close and personal, giving the feel of a hand held camcorder at a wedding, trying to get through people’s eyes into their innermost thoughts and emotions. The tiniest details are lovingly made crucial; volumes are said with the slightest movement. The dialogue is simple and honest, whimsical and raw. The support cast is warm, vibrant and loveable. And finally, Del Toro’s performance is pure genius; subtle, utterly naturalistic and completely believable as the recovering drug addict fallen by the way.
Things We Lost in the Fire is understated and touching, holding a powerful message about human survival, and offering hope for life renewed through compassion and togetherness. It may not be particularly fast or furious. But as Jerry would say: “accept the good”… and go see it. by Rowan Tinca Parkes

A government-backed report has suggested that private school students will be more likely to secure an Oxford place after reforms to the A-level system are introduced in 2010.The report, conducted by the 1994 group that represents 19 leading universities, stated, “It remains to be seen how large a proportion of candidates achieving A* grades are from independent schools.If, as seems likely, this is a large proportion, a question will arise as to whether the introduction of the A* grade has had the effect of assisting research-intensive universities in widening access of undergraduates from a range of backgrounds.” The reforms will bring in A* grades at A-level for the brightest students as well as diplomas that combine vocational and academic study.There is some concern, however, that these changes will increase the gap between maintained and independent pupils, after four out of ten admissions tutors at the 1994 Group universities expressed reservations about accepting the diplomas over A-levels. Paul Marshall, Executive Director of the 1994 Group, said, “The new A* grade will clearly downgrade the currency of those who, from 2010, gain only three grade As.No student can be sure of a place at Oxford or Cambridge but the report suggests that where two or three A*s are held by applicants, this will make Oxbridge admission more likely than for those without such grades.”Many leading universities complain that due to the large number of students achieving straight A grades at A-level, it has become difficult to differentiate among talented applicants.As a result, the government will introduce the A* grade from 2010 for students with a mark of at least 90% in their examinations, which are set to include tougher essay-style questions.“If there is a warning in the report on the potential impact of the A*, it is there to ensure that corrective or compensatory action is taken before it is too late.”James Lamming, OUSU’s Access and Academic Affairs Officer, defended the introduction of the A* grade. He said, “When A grades are awarded to 25% of A-Level entries, the qualifications become much less useful at distinguishing the most talented students. Adding an A* grade seems a possible method of restoring this role.”Lamming added, “I would not want to speculate about their effect on access. However, it is important to remember that A-level grades are only one part of the admissions process.”by Rob Pomfret

3/51 February What I like about Penelope is the one-eyed midget. It’s a mark of the film’s charm, and central to its message, that his height never carries a joke; not once is he reduced to such a crude stereotype, defined by his physical quirks. No, the character of Lemon (Peter Dinklage) is rounded and, like the movie (for the most part), genuinely engaging.
Penelope is a modern fairytale starring Christina Ricci as a young woman born with the snout of a pig. Her parents are desperately trying to marry her off in order to break the curse. One of the suitors, slimy inheritor Edward Vanderman, forms a secret alliance with a reporter, Lemon, in order to expose Penelope’s face to the world. Together they hire loveable rascal Max (James MacAvoy) to infiltrate the Wilhern household – but he develops a friendship with the mark; things become complicated.
Being a fairytale, there’s a strange mangling of context; the film takes place in a mid-Atlantic nowhereland that’s half London, half Manhattan, modern cars but mechanical typewriters. And, being a fairytale, the plot is mainly predictable; true love blossoms, falters, is triumphant.
Yet the telling is consistently witty, and Leslie Caveny’s script embellishes the story with a zest that keeps the viewer grinning widely and may even make it possible to stomach the inevitable ‘be happy with yourself’ message. The film is crisp, bright and lucid; Reese Witherspoon’s courier and Jason Thornton’s amiable bartender make impressions despite little screen-time. And Dinklage carries it: asked exactly why he’s so obsessed with getting his story, Lemon, straight-faced, diagnoses his own motivation in wilfully surreal tell-don’t-show fashion.
The cast sometimes seems unpleasantly polarised along racial lines: the Yanks are likeable, the English callous toffs. But despite some vaguely untenable American accents from the British roster, Ricci and MacEvoy are both excellent. The third act is rather messy, the tone sometimes confused, but criticism be damned: Penelope may not be a great film but it’s charming enough to get away with it, and isn’t that nice?by Laurence Dodds

Magdalen Bridge will close again on May day this year to prevent people, most of whom are students, from jumping into the river Cherwell despite pleas to reopen it.

This year, members of the Oxford City Council’s East area called for it to be reopened, but John Kelly said that the bridge would remain closed “as was decided three years ago.”

Superintendent Brendan O’Dowda told The Oxford Mail, “Last year the event passed off without incident and I think it is likely that the event will be managed in the same way as it was last year.”

Yet three students from Oxford Brookes still managed to bypass the security and jump into the river last year, prompting doubts over the effectiveness of the closure.However, John Kelly, Oxfordshire’s emergency planning Councillor, voiced his continuing faith in the decision to close Magdalen Bridge.

He said that the decision was part of a “multi-agency agreement following forty injuries three years ago”

“10,000 people descending upon the bridge would be disrupting, whether the bridge is closed or open, the disruption is the same. 

Officially the bridge is closed from 3am until 9am but in reality we only close it from 0530am to 06.45am.“The closure of Magdalen Bridge will make no difference to people as they will congregate under the tower rather than on the bridge itself.”

However, many remain unconvinced of the success of such policies. One first year student from University College described the students who jumped as “foolhardy” but added, “If they want to jump, a few men in yellow jackets won’t stop them.”

Every year the bridge attracts an estimated 10 000 people, who gather there to celebrate May morning and hear the Magdalen College Choir sing the Hymnus Eucharisticus. However, it has become a recent tradition for students to jump off Magdalen Bridge, a dangerous activity that has caused both the police and Oxford City Council a great deal of time and money.

This decision came after mass injuries in 2005 with revellers jumping and subsequently breaking limbs; ten were sent to hospital. Magdalen Bridge is an important connecting road between Cowley and the High Street. Last year, the bridge was closed from 3am until 9am, costing £10,000 and disrupting traffic for most of the day.

 Cloverfield3/51 February There were two words I repeated throughout the duration of Cloverfield, neither of which are friendly for print. The best way to describe the film is ‘intense’, as you will quite possibly leave the cinema short of breath. Many will be frustrated by the lack of answers, but the experience provides an adrenaline rush that makes the experience worthwhile. Cloverfield, which was produced by J.J. Abrams of Lost fame, is about a monster that terrorizes New York City. The chaos is viewed through a handheld camera of one of the characters. At times the film feels like another instalment of The Blair Witch Project, only this time it involves a giant monster and its minions of spider-like henchmen. Yet the camera action quickly transforms from being nauseating to emphasizing the action of the film.
Rob’s going away party consumes the first twenty minutes of the film. Rob is a typical ambitious ‘yuppie,’ but he appears to be having a quarter-life crisis. He has accepted a job in Japan and will be leaving the next day. Obviously, that does not happen. As Hud, his best friend states, ‘Looks like you should have left town a little bit earlier.’
Once the action starts, it literally does not stop until the credits end. Rob and three friends embark on a mission to save the woman Rob loves, abandoning any rational plan of escaping Manhattan. This is one of the most annoying parts of the film, however it is necessary for the story to continue. The goodbye tape that Hud was supposed to be recording thus turns into a documentation of a city being destroyed by a very scary monster.
There is no real hero in Cloverfield, as we are meant to be witnessing real people trapped in a situation that goes beyond reason. Consequently, it has been accused of capitalizing on the tragedy of September 11th. The images of terrified people breaking through clouds of dust from a collapsed building are far too familiar. But this makes the events of the film all the more terrifying. There is no one to save the day and no one to explain what is going on.
This is the sort of film that sticks in your mind for days. Aiding the search for answers are a slew of websites dedicated to the film, including fake Myspace pages for the characters. However, the film is not entirely horrifying, it does have its truly funny moments, most involving Hud.
Cloverfield is a ridiculously scary film experience. I left the cinema shaking and contemplating how I would escape Manhattan if faced with a similar situation. While the film is not for everyone, given its definite ability to thrill it is a risk that is worth taking. 

A complaints tribunal has called for the results of Lady Margaret Hall’s JCR by-election to be annulled after the reliability of the online voting system used was called into question.

According to the tribunal’s report, several undergraduates complained to the Returning Officer during last Thursday’s election that there were “insufficient protections against electoral fraud” and that the ballot “lacked due secrecy”. 

Other students reported that their anti-virus software prevented them from accessing the voting page.There was also confusion on election day after it emerged that the online system allowed voters to mark the same candidate as their first and second choice. 

Many thought that doing this would increase the sway of their vote, when in fact it spoilt their ballot.Ashley Thompson, the JCR’s IT representative, sent an email to students just after midday on polling day to advise voters against placing the same candidate as their first and second choice.

However in the same email, he wrote, “You can’t put down a first choice for VP and then leave the remaining options blank.”

The preferential voting system used by LMH does not require all choices to be used, and Thompson was forced to issue a further correction later in the day.Some students expressed concern that the system did not adequately protect the privacy of individual votes after discovering that individually identifiable results were amalgamated in one spreadsheet.

Thompson claims that he protected the confidentiality of individual votes. He explained, “I had the votes in a spreadsheet with e-mail addresses, voting pins and actual votes in separate columns. 

While I was validating e-mail addresses I had the voting columns hidden, and before I started counting votes I deleted the e-mail address/voting pin columns.”

However Returning Officer Nathalie Higgs decided not to release the results of the by-election when polling closed, and forwarded the complaints she received to a tribunal formed of three former JCR officers.

The complaints tribunal released its report on Wednesday, in which ex-JCR President David Tan criticises the current JCR Executive for not ensuring an effective system was in place.

“The planning for this online election smacks of being naive at best, and inept at worst,” he wrote.

It is the first time that LMH has held an election online. Tan suggests that the JCR Executive’s decision not to use a more traditional method was based on “saving themselves from having to sit for an hour at the ballot box.”

“It is surprising that at no point did the JCR Exec think to consult the JCR as a whole as to their views concerning online voting,” he continued.

Asked if he felt anyone should resign following the incident, Tan said, “You may very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.”JCR President Marlene Cayoun said that the vote was held online to make it more accessible.

“We wanted to make it easier for people who live out, who sometimes find it hard to come into college to vote,” she said. “It’s a shame that it didn’t work out, but our motives was [sic] sound.”

Higgs agreed that the move was based on good intentions. “We wanted to try and increase the turnout of voters. In the previous elections only 160 people voted out of an electorate of 400.”

The College’s JCR will meet on Sunday night to decide whether to accept the tribunal’s recommendation that a “by-by-election” be held. The debacle means that the JCR is still without a Vice-President or OUSU Officer.

Both positions were left vacant when the winners of the College’s Michaelmas elections resigned before taking up their roles.Alasdair Craig, who won the election for VP in Michaelmas, was forced to resign when College authorities objected to election posters that depicted him holding a carrot in his trouser flies.

Georgina Day resigned as the College’s OUSU representative earlier this term, saying her position had become “awkward.”Charlotte Dyke, one of the candidates for Vice-President in the by-election, said, “Problems that arose could not have been foreseen before the election took place. It was evident that a lot of research had gone into the online system in order for it to work.”

Let’s face it, we’re all addicted to Facebook. I’m sure I’m not alone in checking my notifications just after I get up and just before I go to bed. Lord knows how many ‘quick breaks’ I’ll take from the old essays to have another sneaky peak. At the end of the day, it’s a convenient way to balance staying social with the latest (potentially all engulfing) essay crisis. Not everyone is such a fan though. A friend recently committed Facebook suicide by deleting her profile and denouncing the networking ‘cult.’ She categorically stated that anyone who considered themselves her real friends knew they could make the effort to call her. She is by no means alone in this. Whatever happened to those romantic days of letter writing and personal phone calls? As much as receiving wall posts is nice, when you realise that you’re one of ten recipients in a friend’s latest ‘Facebook sesh’,  it’s not quite so special.
So why don’t we all abandon it? Well, for starters there’s that minor issue of money, something we students tend to be quite reluctant to part with – let’s face it, calling all our friends would knock up a huge bill and sad though it might seem, we just wouldn’t do it. And then there’s the problem of time – a precious but irritatingly sparse commodity. At Oxford I barely feel that I have enough time to eat or wash; making individual calls to all my friends back home, again, even with the best intentions, probably wouldn’t happen.
So what about the dark ages before Facebook even existed? When my mother (Facebook’s biggest critic) was dating my dad at university, their communication consisted of a scheduled public phone box call once a week. In the world before the internet or mobiles, that was the way a couple at university kept in touch – one conversation a week. Waiting in the cold for a phone to ring seems bad enough to talk to a boyfriend; I highly doubt she would have done it for 20 odd friends as well. So were friendships and relationships really of a better quality before social networking?  Using it as a solitary means of communication would of course be destructive, not to mention downright unhealthy, but in reality that’s not what it’s about. Of course we all love receiving calls from friends back home, but who can deny that a little Super-Wall here and there keeps us topped up with a healthy dose of socialising to keep us going in the mean time.by Helen Smith