The New College room ballot system has been labelled “ridiculous” after many students were mistakenly told that they would have to find rooms outside of College.

An email sent out on 28 November last year demanded that students reply before 6 December if they wanted to be included on the room ballot. When a number of students, believed to be between ten and 15, missed the deadline they were omitted from the ballot, provoking fierce complaints.

Caroline Thomas, New College Home Bursar who composed the email, defended the College’s actions. She explained, “There is a convention at New College that students should reply to emails within 24 hours… The header makes it clear that it is very important that [students reply] if they want a room for next year (‘VERY important information about rooms for next year- please read carefully’).” She also noted that the opening lines of the email stated, “If you disregard any instruction you will prejudice your chances in the ballot.”

However one second-year, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “Some of us don’t check our emails every day. Since when do they make people homeless for not sending an email? That is a pretty harsh fine, especially with a ridiculous deadline. It was a ridiculous three thousand word email, especially as students don’t have the longest attention spans.”

Ben Karlin, JCR President, defended the College authorities. He said, “I certainly would not come down hard on the College…I think it was a series of slightly unfortunate events. People should have been more organised. The JCR and the College can learn from it and make changes for the future.”

William Cowell de Gruchy, Editor of the New College paper, The Newt, echoed Karlin’s sentiments. “As far as I’m concerned the situation arose more from undergrad laziness than a fault in the system, though given that many of our undergrads seem to be incapable of reading long emails, perhaps they should be spoon fed such stuff in future?”

Ginny Howells, the New College JCR Accommodation officer, explained that, “I pushed for the deadline to be extended for everyone…So the deadline was extended, and the people who were late for the first deadline are now back on the ballot.”by Rob Pomfret 

So what’s it to be: baggy or bootcut, flared or straight-leg, high-waisted or low-rise, relaxed fit or slouch fit? Buying a new pair of jeans is no easy feat these days, what with the immountable piles of different styles, shades and fits which populate every clothes-shop. Choose from a £3 Tesco pair, or skip up through the high-street offers on Cornmarket, or perhaps even to the never – will – afford – on – this – student – loan – designer styles, from the old classics of Jordache and Calvin Klein to the new, rising brands VB and Sass & Bide. Screw the essay – this is a challenge. Boyfriend jeans? Just nick a pair from a Teddy Hall boy getting naked on a crew date. Skinny jeans? Honestly, how did a fashion that only serves to accentuate the hips and the thighs ever become so popular and, apparently, a wardrobe stable – now available in pink, turquoise or red.
Gone are the days of old, when overalls made out of a strong, practical blue material called denim were made for factory workers in Western America. Supplied by a Mr Levi-Strauss, the men’s jeans would have the zipper, as it is now, down the front, whereas women’s had the zipper down the right-hand side. Flattering. In the 1930s, Western films took America by storm and as cinema-goers were enraptured by the hardened, authentic cowboys on screen, with them came their jeans. They henceforth became the symbol of all things rugged, virile and independent, moving away from association with labourers and obtaining, by the 1950s, a popular fashion status. The original Levian, John Wayne, was soon replaced by James Dean – rebellious, smouldering, and devastatingly sexy in denim.
Fast forward several decades and every American, on average, owns seven pairs. Inspired to buy yourself some more now, in the hope of reaching a Rebel Without a Cause level of seduction? Button up that coat, and check out the myriad on offer. But be warned: thou shalt be careful in thy purchase, and thou must avoid anything which will transform your perfect denims into a devastating tragedy. No diamanté studding (so no River Island, then), no excessive bleaching which suggests you’ve had an accident in the Scout’s cupboard, and absolutely NO over-the-top, obviously-fake, perfectly-square ‘rips’ and ‘tears’. So with all these guidelines, it’s back to the changing-room…

by Gini Sharvill

 Kate McGettigan
Oxford University Quiz Society 
Who does OUQS represent and why should we sign up?
We exist to promote and organising academic quizzes in Oxford. You should sign up if you like quizzes, want to practise for your 15 minutes of fame on University Challenge, or just want to show off what a smart arse you are!

Why do you think OUQS is important?
It allows students to stretch their intelligence beyond their subject, and provides healthy competition outside of conventional sports. Also, we’ve never lost a Varsity Match, so we are very good at maintaining the glory of Oxford.

As a member of OUQS, what has been your most memorable experience so far?
Watching our A team beat Cambridge in the Varsity Match was definitely a highlight. I really hope we can do the same this year – I don’t want to be the first captain to lose the trophy.

What does OUQS have planned for 2008?
The Inter-Collegiate Quiz is just beginning, which is the big event for 2008 and takes about three weeks in total. Next term will be the Varsity Match, which is being held in Oxford and will be very exciting for all concerned.

Tell us something you didn’t / couldn’t say at fresher’s fair?
We have Strip Buzzers. We get them out after we’ve had a few drinks.

When do you meet and how can we get involved?
We hold quizzes on an ad hoc basis a couple of times a term – to be added to the mailing list e-mail [email protected]. Squad Trials are held in Michaelmas of each academic year.
 Interview by Louise Collins

Oxford research has claimed that there is a strong link between the “mindset” of engineering students and Islamic extremism.Diego Gambetta, of Nuffield College, and Steffen Hertog, a lecturer at Durham concluded in their paper ‘Engineers of Jihad’ that there is strong relationship between an engineering background and involvement in Islamic terrorist groups. The authors found that graduates from subjects such as science, engineering, and medicine are strongly overrepresented among Islamist movements in the Muslim world, but engineers alone are over-represented among those who gravitate to violent groups. Hertog explained, “We had heard the anecdotal story that engineers are more prone to right-wing and religious thinking than people of other faculties so we checked the educational background of radical actors.  We found that a high proportion had been through higher education and found that among these actors engineers were clearly over-represented compared to actors from other degree backgrounds.”
The paper does not suggest that it is engineers’ technical skills that made them more attractive to radical groups. Instead, it says that among engineers there is a  “mindset bias” which is more likely to attract a larger number of them to Islamic extremism.  “Studies have shown that Engineers are more right-wing and religious than other faculties.  There may exist a mind-set bias among engineers towards conservatism, they may be attracted to the predictability, the strong hierarchies, and the desire for a lost order [that is apparent in Islamic extremism],” Hertog said. “There are very few engineers involved in left-wing extremism,” he continued.
The research claims that this “mindset” has particular impact when the social conditions endured are tough. “Engineering is considered a very high-status degree in Islamic countries so engineers are more likely to be frustrated by the poor socio-economic conditions and lack of social mobility in their countries,” Hertog said.The authors claim that engineers might have “peculiar cognitive traits and dispositions” which makes a disproportionate number of them open to right-wing traits of “monism”, believing that there is one best solution, and “simplism”, the idea that if only people were rational, remedies would be simple.  A past survey in the United States has shown that there is a higher proportion of engineers who declare themselves to be on the right of the political spectrum than any other disciplinary group.  
“We could thus hypothesize that personal dispositions and style of thinking among engineers differ from those of students in other subjects in ways that could make them more prone to become involved in violent forms of radicalization, not just as willing recruits but as prime movers,” the paper states.  However, it adds that its findings are not proof of its mindset theory.“The mindset hypothesis predicts that we should find engineers to have more extreme ideological tendencies than people in other disciplines, and a greater predilection towards joining radical political groups in general,” the research continues.  In addition, the report also argues that engineers might be more present among right-wing and religious groups because of a another “mindset” feature, “preservatism”, the craving to restore a lost order of authority and privilege. “This way we (try to) explain why they’re not present on the left, but present on both the right and among Islamists”, said Hertog.A third-year engineer at Pembroke said,  “I think the ability of an engineer to act in a purely practical and clinical way, removing the element of human feeling to an extent, sits quite well with terrorism.” But he added that an engineering “mindset” alone would not be enough to attract people to terrorism. Octave Oppetit, another third-year engineer, commented, “We believe it is our god-given right to knock down what we have built up in the first place.”Hertog emphasised that the study does not claim that all, or even many, engineers have a quasi-terrorist ‘mindset’, saying, “We do not make generalizations about engineers in general, just about the radical fringe among them.”The authors hope to continue their studies, saying that they want to better explain the over-representation of engineers in extremist Islamic groups. “We want to conduct further psychological cognitive studies on individuals to put our fingers on exactly what it is that explains the over-representation of engineers amongst Islamic radicals,” said Hertog.  “Engineering is merely a proxy for some underlying condition that tends towards right wing and extreme religious views,” he added.
Hertog concluded, “There is strong evidence to suggest that nothing predicts a person’s social and political views as well as their faculties, and, at least according to US data, engineers are outliers in their religious and right-wing views.”by Nadya Thorman 

 Violet Graham leaves the High Street and explores the lure of the second-hand.Shopping in charity shops is a divisive issue. Whilst volunteering for an hour or two on Saturday during our schools years was one thing, Duke of Edinburgh service points contributing to a glittering CV, (or so we thought), moving pensively between the rails on a Tuesday – perhaps with Grandma and Grandma’s friend from the church – is another. Indeed, the thought of pre-used clothes in their original habitat, on unknown and unnamed bodies, is a little alarming. Our fears of germs and bacteria become suddenly acute in this environment, and arguably not always undeservedly either, since my volunteer friend once unloaded a dead cat along with the nightgowns and old curtains of a bag of donations. Contempt has also formed over the belief that clothes are worn-out and out-of-date, whilst ‘frequently hideous’ demonstrates well the popular view of the ornaments taking pride of place along the back wall.
But charity shops should not be snubbed, and indeed recognition of their value is on the rise. No longer are these shops perceived as exclusively for the aged but rather as treasure troves for the popular youth as well. Society has returned once again to our long-established, sometimes suppressed, passion for bargains and to standing out from the crowd: and charity shops, now movements desiring ‘one-off vintage pieces’ have okayed their existence once again, are the haven for just these kinds of find.
Disputably, a large part of our contemporary interest in charity shops stems from current fashion trends rather than ethical or moral concerns. Since Moss and Miller first aired their vintage finds – fashionable young starlets grabbing at this opportunity to be different – a vast section of the population has taken to adorning themselves in the unseen and the old – the lacy with the ‘80s clutch, the matronly skirt worn as a dress with a sunhat, and so on. Oxfam has become the focal point of a fashion pilgrimage that others might make to Jack Wills, the super-skinny section of Topman or across the uniformity of JJB Sports: where items are to be had to formulate specific cut-out-and-keep identities.
So some believe in shopping in charity shops as if this, in itself, is a statement. But whilst fashion, ever developing but also ever-cyclic, is pulling up the same items over decades – think leggings, high-waists and check shirts, which have all come round again, and again – charity shops can actually throw up statement clothes. This kind of item should not, I think, be about being different but about contributing to and enlivening your wardrobe. The best combinations come from a blending of the old and the new. Quality items are to be found across Help the Aged, Cancer Research, Save The Children and beyond; and these things, like jackets and belts and trouser suits can not only contribute to our outfits but strike a statement of ‘100% cashmere’ or ‘finest quality yarn’ across our Primark infested lives, calling remarkably on the same prices or lower. City charity shops in particular deserve mention, offering extensive variety and quality: a multitude of identities on the rails.
And trendy clothes are obviously not the only exciting finds to be had. Paintings, records and jewellery are also to be sifted from the drudge in your regular charity store. Books too, organised alphabetically and by genre – a section of footballers’ biographies alongside Jamie’s eat the world a better place, the classics, war literature and steamy romances – are usually on hand to be considered. Sometimes the keen sifter alights on something old –something antique – something interesting. And just the thing you needed may also be there too: waiting to complete collections or inspire interest – the final ‘Now’ album for your collection perhaps, or a selection of Keats’ poetry to provoke the soul.
There is in fact a lot to say in the defence of charity stores as the ideal shopping experience. In the last few years these good purpose shops have in many cases been whitewashed and hoovered. At home, where we have a charity shop collective of over ten stores, a hierarchy has been established amongst them, and Cancer Research – with shining, happy staff, colour coordinated rails and two floors – is in fact up with the best of them: boasting designer clothing and exotic window displays all year round. Shopping in a charity shop has become more of a fast paced experience and bargains are often to be achieved through early starts and queuing. More and more charities are also selling their own, new, items: helping those they support by providing craft-based jobs and buyers overseas in their UK stores; who buy the coffee, ceramic pots and beaded purses along with their second-hand finds.
Today, I think, charity shops are more successfully responding to our commercial instincts. At the conception of the first stores – the first Oxfam was on Broad Street in 1947 –  was the notion that people needed to buy things cheaply, post WWII, and that these shops could achieve this whilst also raising money for charity – sometimes the causes were reflected in their buyers. However, in an age of greater consumerism, it is as if stores have only recently really tuned in to promoting their commercial status: that is to promoting the appeal and pull of their stores, rather than hoping and depending on good will as well as need. In buying at a charity shop, the ‘good’ part is enormous. Happy in the knowledge that we will look fabulous at the ball – a beautiful concoction of fabrics, classic cuts and sparkles folded neatly into the carrier bag- we are also giving our twelve pounds to helping the development and issue of medicine and food in conditions of famine. If society is interested, or able, to donate money directly to charity, then this is great. But if we can dress ourselves or inspire our interests, in part, in these stores – and not in money-grabbing high street chains entirely – then this is also a really good thing. By also donating items and clothing – things no longer wanted – we can keep the system going: inadvertently completing others’ perfect outfits in to the bargain, through giving an unwanted scarf, the jeans that no longer fit, the heels that were just too high.
So the charity shop is definitely something to be involved with. Whether using them as a source for great fashion triumphs, outrageous 80’ glamour outfits or in the noble pursuit of Jordan’s Crystal at half the price, there is a lot to be gained. There is also a lot to give, and if you still can’t stomach shopping, then maybe the thought of others wearing your clothes or reading your books isn’t so bad – donate and feel involved: charity will always be in.

Oxford Union President Emily Partington was forced to deny allegations of sexual harassment and racism at the debating society this week after the story of Krishna Omkar’s disqualification hit national and international press.

Media interest began on Saturday with an article on page 3 of the Daily Mail entitled, “Poll rigging, sex jibes and a case of the Oxford blues” and focussing on the feud between ex-Treasurer Omkar and Charlotte Fischer, his opponent in last term’s elections. 

A similar article appeared in the Sunday Times the next day.When she resigned from Standing Committee two weeks ago, Fischer alleged that certain Union officers had sent her text messages saying “fancy a fuck?”.

Following an article in the Times of India that suggested members of Omkar’s slate were responsible for these messages, Emily Partington released a statement stressing that “Ms. Fischer has not alleged that Mr. Omkar or his supporters were responsible for the offensive messages.”

The statement continues, “The Oxford Union rejects any assertions of discrimination. It has a proud record of attracting committee members from all social, religious, and racial backgrounds, and does not discriminate on these, or any other, grounds.”

The story has made front page news in India. Omkar appeared on NDTV, an Indian television station, on Wednesday to defend himself.Being under the media spotlight has caused tension on the Union’s Standing Committee. 

On Monday, Librarian Ed Waldegrave asked committee member Ian Wellby if he had spoken to the Daily Mail. Wellby strongly denied the suggestion.Emily Partington added that she was unhappy with the coverage.

“I’m in the process of putting together a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, and I’ve asked the papers to redress factual inaccuracies,” she said.She also commented that she was going to introduce a system of fines to discourage members of Standing Committee from speaking to the press without her express permission in the future.

 6-8 St. Michael's Street4/5 Two words which sum up the Nosebag: ‘elderflower wine’. Could you get any more wholesome without using ‘organic’ as a prefix? And wholesome is exactly what you will find if you venture up the creaky wooden staircase of the Nosebag’s 15th Century listed building and enter a world of terracotta walls, chunky check blinds, hanging pot plants and kitsch table flowers. The set up is simple; bench seating and counter service – cold food dished up and handed over on the spot, hot meals brought to your table. The ever-changing menu is as rustic as the décor might suggest, with simple dishes done to a consistently high standard. At lunchtime take advantage of the gargantuan portions of salad (£4.15 for three different kinds); choose between wheatberry and peanut, white cabbage and apple, or pesto pasta, for a start. Also available are quiches, jacket potatoes, soups and a handful of hot dishes such as lasagne. For dinner all the lunchtime options are still on offer, and a few extra ‘proper’ meals (£7 – £9) added.
We ordered our mains first, then decided to get a chicken liver pâté to start (£4.50 with a hunk of bread and salad). The waitress behind the counter raised her eyebrows as if we had asked for our chicken to be cooked rare. ‘Are you sure?’ This was a novelty; an employee advising against a purchase, though luckily my companion views eating as a competitive sport. She did, however, have a point; the servings are very large, so make sure you work up an appetite before you visit. The pâté was delicious, though like novices we misjudged the bread to spread ratio, and ended up having to slather it onto slices of tomato when the roll disappeared. The mains were hearty and filling, the best being the beef and Guinness stew with herb and horseradish cobblers, vegetables or salad (£8.75). The cobblers (a cross between a scone and a dumpling, but far superior to both) were delicious, buttery and light, with a genius ability to soak up the stew without going soggy. Our other main, a pumpkin and red pepper tagine with couscous and salad (£8.25) was tasty but lacked the comfort-food element of the stew. The Nosebag is an excellent place for vegetarian fodder which makes up around half of their overall output; it is, however, priced very similarly to the meaty options, which may make them seem expensive to some. I suppose you pay a premium for freshness here, but it’s a worthwhile premium to pay.
If you still have room, the homemade desserts and cakes should not be overlooked, and thus I am forced to make a very controversial statement: the brownies here (£1.70) are the best in Oxford. They are so good that I had to cut them up into little squares pre-consumption in order to savour every squidgy, fudgey mouthful. The Nosebag is ideal for an informal, impromptu bite to eat, a cosy haven of homely calm amidst the chaos of Oxford life. Take your mum, she’ll love it.

by Kate Hayter

 Jeremy Cliffe, Nick Hargrave and Chris Jackson investigate political sexcapades and ask why they are a central concern of the media"My dear Arthur, I never talk scandal. I only talk gossip,” Cecil Graham exclaims in Lady Windermere’s Fan. “What is the difference between scandal and gossip?” enquires Lord Windermere. “Oh, gossip is charming! History is merely gossip. But scandal is gossip made tedious with morality”.
Wilde’s observations remain spot-on to this day. Sexual vice implies gossip. Politics implies power. Power implies moral obligations. Thus, a political sex scandal is born. And since the dawn of time the corridors of power have echoed with salacious stories, bellowed and whispered, of adultery, deviance and perversion. But what lies behind this relationship between sex and power? What place does a scandal have in this age of personality politics? And at the end of the night, is it any of our business?
Recent British politics alone provides many an example: Westminster, it seems, is rarely devoid of stories of sexual misdemeanours that leave trails of red-faces, outrage and book deals in their sordid wake. Let us refresh our memories.
Back in the 1960s Mick Jagger and Keith Richards may have been trying to get some satisfaction, but they weren’t the only ones; John Profumo infamously slept his way into the history books, fired as Conservative War Secretary for an affair with Christine Keeler, the mistress of a Russian spy. A decade later, the Liberal Party’s Jeremy Thorpe (not content with refuse collection and proportional representation) lost his seat at the 1979 General Election following a criminal trial in which he was accused of conspiring to murder his rent boy lover.
And some of John Major’s Conservatives may have misinterpreted his “Back to Basics” message in 1993. Figures such as Tim Yeo and Piers Merchant were hounded out of office following revelations of illegitimate children and dalliances with Soho hostesses. Nicholas Soames’ affairs became the stuff of Westminster legend, with one ex-mistress famously comparing sex with him to “a wardrobe falling on top of you with the key still in the lock”. Charming.
Not to be outdone by their rivals across the floor, New Labour certainly welcomed in the 21st Century with a bang. Things could only get better for Ron Davies after his 1998 “moment of madness” on Clapham Common, not to mention “two shags” Prescott’s secretarial sexcapades. Over at the Lib Dems, who could forget the way Mark Oaten’s ‘three-in-a-bed’ past returned to haunt him, enlivening an otherwise less than scandalicious leadership contest two years ago?
Not a sex scandal per se until all involved are ‘named and shamed’, but writer and TV chef Clarissa Dickinson-Wright cooked up a storm with her audacious diary claims to have made love to several Members of Parliament behind the Speaker’s chair (presumably Parliament was not in session at the time…).
A glance overseas reveals that the goings-on amongst denizens of the Palace of Westminster are hardly sexceptional. While the ever-pathetic clown Boris Johnson was getting into schoolboy scrapes on these shores, at the other end of the Channel Tunnel Jacques Chirac was pushing the limits of the French media’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on parliamentary promiscuity.
Quite the opposite was the case in Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi’s volatile marriage reached tipping point at the start of last year. Italy’s former First Lady, less than pleased at sitting down to the evening news to see her husband telling a woman half his age “With you I’d go anywhere…”, made her feelings known in a letter published on the front page of the country’s best-selling newspaper. Ever the Latin lover, Silvio responded via the headline “I guard your dignity, like a treasure within my heart, even when careless comments slip off my tongue”. But Berlusconi’s wilesome ways had got him into even hotter water in 2005 when he provoked an international diplomatic crisis by implying that he had seduced the Finnish Prime Minister. He apologised, adding that “anyone who had seen a picture of her” must have been aware that he had been joking. The Finns did not see the funny side.
A cursory perusal through the top shelf of history reveals that the deviant politician is far from a modern phenomenon: the Roman Republic owed its very existence to the collision of sex and politics. According to the historian Livy, the scandalous wrongdoings of the Roman prince Sextus Tarquinius provoked Lucius Junius Brutus to lead an incensed Roman people in revolt against the monarchy in the 6th century BC. 550 years later, Emperor Caligula gave grist to the First Century rumour mill by prostituting his three sisters, while tales about his bizarre equine shenanigans were to be heard in many a forum.
But does being caught trousers down necessarily mean the end of the road for a politician? It certainly may have been so in decades gone by – figures such as Profumo and Thorpe left the political arena to sink into the domain of relative obscurity, remembered more for their ignominious downfalls than their political achievements.
These days, however, there is certainly life after the political scandal. Tim Yeo bounced back from resignation to become Shadow Education Secretary under Michael Howard. John Prescott, to his delight and the public’s amusement, was not forced to resign the office of Deputy Prime Minister after his indiscretion. Mark Oaten did resign but found work as a feature writer for the Sunday Times and has since appeared as a Lib Dem representative on such bastions of the establishment as ‘Question Time’ and the ‘Politics Show’. These days the public seem to have little appetite for permanently shunning those caught in compromising positions.
Indeed, looking further afield, Bill Clinton’s reputation as the “comeback kid” was cemented more after ‘Monica-gate’ than it was in New Hampshire in 1992. Despite a Senate impeachment hearing and months, if not years, of outrage in the conservative American press, Bill still remains one of the most popular US Presidents of all time in countless polls. His presence on Hilary’s current Primary campaign is seen in some quarters as a prerequisite to her gaining the Democratic nomination for 2008.
So perhaps we can conclude that the public’s tolerance, even acceptance, of the sex scandal has reached such a point that the sexual misgivings of our politicians may not even be damaging, let alone fatal, for aspiring representatives of people. Some may talk of a shift in the West’s moral compass, and this is not out of the question. However, rather than there being greater or fewer occurrences of sexual deviance in the corridors of power than in the past, it seems that the wandering eye of the pressured, risk-loving politico always has and always will lead to affairs, illicit love-children and tabloid exposés. But the difference today is that while we all love a good scandal as much as ever, we have learnt to make the distinction between an unfaithful lover and an incompetent legislator.
If this is the case, should the media differentiate between the remit of Hansard and that of ‘Hello!’? While even our nation’s most illustrious newspapers have few qualms about slathering the gruesome details of every little sleazy Westminster affair across their pages, be they tabloid, broadsheet or Berliner, the French press concern themselves solely with the political goings-on at the Assemblée Nationale. Thanks to stringent restrictions on where newspaper hacks can poke their noses, the late President Mitterrand managed to father an illegitimate family without so much as a drop of ink split about the matter for twenty years. The right to privacy has been enshrined in French law since 1790, and the no amount of revolutionary trysts, Dionysian orgies and ménages a trois in the bowls of the Elysée is not shrouded by the law.
So which state of affairs is preferable? One where every sordid detail of politicians’ private lives, even those of fatuous relevance, is voyeuristically subjected to public exposure? Or one in which such tales form a thick undercurrent of dubious rumour and shadowy gossip, forbidden by law from breaking out onto the front pages and thereby into the public sphere, where ‘gossip’ is rarely sufficiently official to become full-blown ‘scandal’? One could reasonably argue that, in the words of Wilde’s Cecil Graham, gossip is charming, and that a healthy democracy should allow the public, inevitably hungry for confirmation that its law-makers are as flawed as anyone else, free reign over facts, regardless of their direct relevance to the process of government itself.
But what about the broken families, personal offence and psychological upheaval that a front-page scandal implies for those involved? Why waste valuable column inches on such arguably ephemeral and ethically questionable reporting when beyond the trivial matters of overactive parliamentary libidos there is a world of famine, climate catastrophe and war to be covered?
In these morally relaxed times, our approach to such behaviour needs to be re-examined. If consensus no longer demands that sexual vice lead to political downfall, there is now but a thin veil covering stories that are effectively little more than indulgent exercises in frivolity. There is, it seems, a fine line between hawking sensationalism and reporting subjects of genuine news value. Mark Oaten’s penchant for Polish labour had practically no bearing on his capabilities as a would-be contender for the post eventually won by Menzies Campbell – press coverage could barely justify itself as anything more than gossip-spreading. In contrast, David Blunkett sailed much closer to the winds of impropriety in his affair with Kimberley Quinn; not due to the adulterous nature of the relationship but to his unprofessional intervention in her au-pair’s visa application. It is this sort of element to a sex scandal which is unquestionably necessary public knowledge.
Nevertheless, even those newspapers that enjoy a reputation for carefully considered, serious journalism see fit to publish details of sex scandals alongside parliamentary sketches, market reports and measured opinion. This implies the expectation that politicians maintain higher standards than the rest of us, that while representing the public they should constitute models of virtue and occupy a higher moral plain than the rest of the populus. Outside of cloud-cuckoo land, this is surely blindly unrealistic. After all, as the guru of modern statesmanship, Niccolò Machiavelli notes, “Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation”. The holier-than-thou brigade with their gloating reports of moral faux-pas are either living in one such “non- existent principality” or are dressing whimsical gossip in the garb of weighty, relevant political crisis.
In reality, editors publish what the public want to read, and the public want to read confirmation of the fact that they live not in a world where power is synonymous with virtue but one where everyone, regardless of their office, is subject to the same human weaknesses. Strange though it may sound, a political sex scandal is a ‘feel good’ story (if not for the politician in question). Whether this reminder of the fallibility of those in power justifies its expression in the crude form of innuendo-filled headlines is a matter for debate.
One thing is certain though; this genre of story certainly captures the public imagination, which in this age of voter apathy may not be such a bad thing. In certain cases it may even provide the more indistinct member of the backbenches with some much-needed media coverage. In recognition of the fallibility of those in power, however, this should surely be balanced with more humane treatment of disgraced politicians by the media, or as Tony Blair called it, “the feral beast, tearing people and reputations to bits”.
The fact of the matter is that politicians, drawn from varied walks of life, and (at least in theory) representative of the public at large, are just as likely to mirror the vices of their constituents as their values and aspirations. Seen from this angle, history – political events – really is “merely gossip”. ‘Gossip’ in the sense that it comes down to basic quotidian realities, however sordid, perverted and macabre these may be. In the words of American writer P.J. O’Rourke, “Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.”

 Clare Barnard on how finding yourself isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be On entering my interview, bottom had not acquainted itself with chair before I was impatiently probed: ‘So you’ve applied for deferred entry, will you come in 2006?’ Utterly unprepared for this question, I managed a stubborn ‘No’ as I dropped into the crusty armchair. I’d always wanted that gap year. You know, the one that everyone talks about, the one that’s ‘Soooooo amazing!’ whether it’s spent digging a well in Africa or lying on a Thai beach. As a matter of fact, I did have a week on a Thai island, and for the duration of my stay I seemed to be magnetically adhered to my beach towel; I was never to be found in my beachside hut. Despite how awe-inspiringly beautiful Thai beaches are, this was largely due to our toilet being blocked and the resulting smell being amplified by the 40C heat. But that’s not the angle I usually give when people ask ‘So, how was your gap year?’ with such fervour. Once you’ve experienced the pleasures and pains of travel, you’re unavoidably caught in a tricky dilemma when answering this question. My experience in foreign lands last year was the best experience of my life to date, but it did include many blocked toilets, mild illness, and suddenly being evicted when working abroad.
With this in mind, I shall now attempt to give an accurate portrayal of what my gap year really entailed. I’ll begin with the office job I did for six months in order to fund my explorations. This may seem a banal detail but it needs to be said that the casual work required to raise the necessary £5000 is painfully dull. Yet each hour, I calculated, financed me for a day in India, and thus the trade off was definitely worthwhile.
With funds raised, we can start on the packing. It may seem obvious that this is not in the slightest bit glamorous (although I did manage to find a gorgeous pink Karrimor rucksack to transport my life in), but the extent to which what you pack matters cannot be overlooked. Although weight is an obvious issue, packing light really hits home when you’re struggling along the gutter of a Malaysian road in ninety percent plus humidity and you’re fully aware that it’s at least another mile to your hostel.
The first thing to be noticed upon reaching your initial destination is that everyone is staring at you. Constantly. You realise it’s not going to stop; have you suddenly become a voluntary zoo exhibit? In some cases yes; on a beach in Thailand no, as you would be one of over fourteen million tourists that swarm around the beaches of Bangkok and Chiang Mai each year. Where the stares do not cease, you quickly learn to ignore them. This becomes hard, however, when locals insist on running ahead of you in the street and taking photos as you walk you by. This happened to me in both China and Thailand. Ultimately you have to take to heart that stoic British saying, ‘It’s all part of the fun!’ as you fix your eyes back on the pavement.
As well as being an object for fixated eyes, being alien to a land means you’re subjected to much stereotyping. These prejudices change from country to country, and you must acquaint yourself quickly with what is expected of you whenever you border hop. In Hanoi, Vietnam, you’re dubbed as an outsider pretty quickly and therefore sitting down at that street stall for coffee might not be too easy. In China, this is complemented by the likelihood of being offered toilet paper whenever you try to communicate with hospitality staff or shopkeepers. Problems occur closer to home too, and in Southern Spain, where I spent my Summer living and working, I felt quite uncomfortable being so close to ‘MarbeL-LA’, and my compatriots holidaying there. It was at times hard to get across that although I am English, I don’t follow football or drink copious amounts of lager.
In many ways, my time in Spain was the toughest part of my travels, but there were many other adventures along the way. Having my debit swallowed by an ATM on arrival in Hong Kong at 2am wasn’t great, but arguing with a man at a Chinese bank was nothing compared to finding a new home and job in a foreign land. Rural Andalucia became my home, in a little village where all the families gathered together to chat in the central square. It was delightful. Being evicted with less than 48 hours notice was not delightful. Nor was being obliged to walk away from a job thanks to it being potentially very dangerous. With these disastrous events, a culmination of the various factors of alienation occurred: I couldn’t speak the language fluently, I didn’t understand the social or workplace conventions, and I had no clue what had made me think this was a good idea!
Confidence in my decision to travel returned gradually, first with meeting two new flatmates, a Spaniard and an Argentinean. The night I moved in, we had the first of many evening meals together, where each of us would prepare a dish as a contribution to what often became a feast. Then slowly I also learnt how to express my emotions more in Spanish. Being able to swear effectively was especially useful. But psychologically, not being understood by most of people around you, potentially for months, takes its toll. In Spain, as I looked over the orange grove every morning, waiting to catch my bus out of Tesorillo, I realised I was beginning to develop many of the things I felt I was lacking in all those months of backpacking; the interaction, the integration and the dissolving of isolation.
And there I was. The place I had always wanted to be. I remember lying on top of a wall, which dropped down into the sea, having reached the top of Malaysia, and wishing I was at the stage where I could say I’d done it. I visualised recounting stories: people would laugh, and the mental grappling with the isolation and the unknown would be long gone. This is something a lot of travellers refuse to admit; idealising is necessary to commit to travel, but those contrived scenarios simply don’t materialise as you expect. I had replayed my departing flight over and over again in my head before I left – the profound thoughts and feelings I would experience as the wheels lifted from the runway, breaking my habitation with England for ten months! Instead, as the plane heaved itself into the sky, I was being offered crackers and being talked at in Gujarati by the elderly couple hemming me into the window seat. They were very thoughtful but didn’t seem to mind that I didn’t understand Gujarati; I was going to be hearing it for the duration of the flight regardless. What now seems a great story – my introduction to India being an intense eight hours of unintelligible jabbering – was, at the time, hopelessly painful. Truly, this is the traveller’s mantra: ‘No pain, no gain.’

President attempts to overrule Returning Officer after Ex-Presidents fail to oust him
The Union Returning Officer (RO) is at loggerheads with President Emily Partington over who can run in the upcoming elections for Trinity 2008. Partington has attempted to overrule Cameron Penny’s interpretation of eligibility rules, which prevent current Librarian Edward Waldegrave from running. Penny has responded by stating  that “The President does not have the power, within the rules of the society to interpret on matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Returning Officer.”The dispute follows an unsuccessful attempt by ex-President Luke Tryl to oust Penny as RO.Partington posted a notice in the Union on Wednesday night overruling Penny, questioning his right to overturn an earlier decision by previous RO  Alex Priest.Priest’s decision had opened up the Presidential race and allowed Waldegrave to run, but Penny claims that this was illegitimate because it amended an even earlier ruling.At a Union Standing Committee meeting on Monday 29 January, Tryl called for the dismissal of Penny, saying that he had “lost confidence in the entire system of Deputy Returning Officers.” He stated that he disagreed with the eligibility criteria imposed by Penny. Tryl claimed that the Returning Officers were not interpreting Union rules correctly, leading to an unfair restriction of those eligible to enter the race.“What is the fundamental harm in opening up our elections? It’s becoming slightly ridiculous,” Tryl said. “Unfortunately what I fear has happened is that a clique has appeared in the Deputy Returning Officers.”
Penny defended himself, saying that the previous Returning Officer had been wrong to overturn his original decision, because “he had not sought the authority of a higher power in making it.”
“I must be shown to be unwilling or unable to carry out my duties,” Penny said.In a secret ballot, six members of the committee supported the removal of Penny, six opposed it, and one abstained. The motion failed as it required a two-thirds majority. Alex Just, another former President, supported Tryl’s attempt to remove Penny, attacking what he called “arbitrary constrictions” on who could run for President.He also said that selecting a President only half a term before they were due to take office would prevent whoever was elected from organising a successful Union term, saying, “I had done 80% of my work by this time last year.”Standing Committee member Ian Wellby argued against Penny’s removal, saying that he was right to revert to the original judgement of Alex Priest, because “the Returning Officer cannot change his own ruling.”“I strongly contest the idea that the Deputy Returning Officers are a clique. It’s utter madness to try to dismiss him,” he added.by David Matthews