Mel Broughton, a Speak animal rights campaigner, will stand trial from 2 June accused of offences against Oxford University.

Broughton was arrested in November 2007 following a police investigation into a fire at Queens College sports pavilion the previous year, and the discovery of improvised explosive devices at Templeton College in February 2007.

A police statement said that he has been charged with, “two counts of possessing or controlling explosives with intent to endanger life or injure property and two counts of having an article with intent to destroy or damage property.”

Broughton, 47, is one of the founding members of Speak, which has protested against the recently-opened animal testing centre on South Parks Road for a number of years.

In November 2006 fire-fighters spent an hour putting out the blaze in the roof of Queen’s College sports pavilion. Bomb disposal experts were brought in after the discovery of devices at Templeton College in 2007.

Speak claims that it aims to “[challenge] the government… to accountability and openness.” The use of violent terminology to describe animal rights activists is, it says, an attempt “to divert attention from the real perpetrators of violence who thus become the implied victims.”

In 2005 Robert Cogswell, a Speak spokesman, told This is Oxfordshire: “We do not condone the ALF’s actions but we do not condemn them either.”

Speak continue to hold frequent marches through Oxford and remain vocal about their opposition to the University’s policies on animal testing for biomedical research. They also protest on Broad Street at University degree days.

The group grew out of the success of ‘Stop Primate Experimentation at Cambridge’ (SPEAC) which stopped the construction of the Huntington Life Sciences Laboratory in 2004.

Pro-Test was formed in January 2006 in an effort to counter the views of SPEAK and defend the advantages of using animals for biomedical development projects.

One of Oxford’s top donors is threatening to withdraw his support for the University after they did not accept his offer of a statue.

Zvi Meitar has branded the University’s actions “ridiculous” and “foolish” in an interview with The Times newspaper. He also suggested that he would be reconsidering further donations to the institution.

Meitar is an Israeli multi-millionaire who, along with his younger brother, is believed by Forbes to be worth around £250 million.

In the interview the 74-year-old lawyer commented, “There was a big future…Now the whole thing is in question.” He added, “I don’t think anybody [at Oxford] really cares about this. It’s sad.”

The statue he offered to the University was a four ton, 10ft monument of Tory MP Sir George Cooke and was carved in the eighteenth century by Sir Henry Cheere. It once belonged to Elton John, from whom Meitar is believed to have acquired it.

The University has claimed that the statue was rejected not as a personal slight to Mr Meitar but simply because there was no space for it. They have said that several potential locations were examined in order to determine their suitability as a home for the statue.

A spokesperson for Oxford University criticised The Times for misrepresenting the facts regarding Mr Meitar’s offer. They insisted that he is “a fast friend and supporter of Oxford” and will continue to work closely with University officials on matters of fundraising.

The spokesperson also suggested that Meitar enjoys cordial relations with the Vice Chancellor John Hood.

According to the University Press Office there were two barriers to accepting the statue.

Given the piece’s high value, adequate security provisions had to be provided, while its heavy weight meant that structural assessments were necessary to ensure it did not damage University property. None of the proposed sites were deemed suitable on these grounds.

This incident has thrown fresh light on the importance of Oxford University’s links with wealthy patrons who are willing to contribute massive sums towards the university’s upkeep and development.

To meet rising costs and steep competition from American universities, a new fund-raising campaign ‘Oxford Thinking: The Campaign for the University of Oxford’ will be launched later this month. Oxford currently lags behind equivalent institutions in America such as Harvard, whose endowment is in excess of £65 billion.

By contrast, Oxford’s endowment is valued at £3.6 billion.

‘Oxford Thinking’ will be launched next Wednesday by Chancellor Lord Patten and Vice-Chancellor John Hood with a star-studded event at the British Academy.

The University will seek to raise over £1 billion which will be used to refurbish a number of University sites, including the Radcliffe Infirmary site. The money will also be used to fund a new £29 million book depository, support an overhaul of the University Science area and allow remodeling of the New Bodleian Library.

In a continuing effort to attract students from poorer backgrounds, funds raised will also be used to support scholarships and grants. In addition to this there will be increased investment in teaching posts in an attempt to attract the best and brightest academics to Oxford.

The campaign hopes to appeal to successful alumni, businesses and philanthropists in an attempt to raise the funds. It is expected that it will take many years to reach the £1 billion target.

All Brasenose students have been sent a letter by the Dean warning them about bad behaviour and drug misuse in college.

In the letter, sent last Wednesday, Dr Giles Wiggs wrote, “It appears that the behaviour of some students in college is falling well short of what is expected and required.”

He added that he has advised the Junior Dean and the Porters to “take a strict zero-tolerance approach to any behaviour that is likely to cause disruption to those taking exams.”

In a move which has worried many students, Dr Wiggs also reminded students of the college drugs policy, referring them to “section G.7 of the Blue Book.”

These regulations set out the disciplinary procedure for dealing with students found to be involved in drugs.

He continued, “any student who misuses classified drugs risks being sent down permanently. Given evidence that has recently been reported to me some students can expect to be called to my office within the next few days to discuss the matter.”

Toby Shergold, a spokesperson for Thames Valley Police said, “Our University liaison officer is speaking to the college authorities about the issues raised. The letter was drawn to our attention and our officers will be getting in touch.”

However, students have expressed concern over the college clamp-down on drugs.

One second year student who wished to remain anonymous said, “Some people are a bit concerned that college will begin looking around rooms as we have heard that that has happened elsewhere.

“It feels as if everyone in Brasenose had become a suspect.”

Another second year student said, “This is an issue for the whole college. I don’t know anyone who’s been called to see the Dean, but I know some people who are worried about this.

“I wouldn’t say that drugs are a big problem in Brasenose, but I’m sure that there are a handful of people involved, but then that’s the same in every college.”

JCR President George Lambert refused to comment on the issue.

Dr Wiggs was unavailable for comment.

Police officers who entered a student house during a party last Saturday have been accused of acting unlawfully by a leading expert on drugs law.

A team of eight officers was patrolling in Cowley at around midnight when their drugs sniffer dog indicated that it could smell a substance in the house.

The officers then entered the house searching for drugs and formally searched one student. No drugs were found on guests or in any of the rooms.

The sergeant in charge of the team said on Tuesday that “the team were given permission to enter the house along with the drugs dog.”

However, the host of the party, a second-year student at St Hilda’s, said that she told the officers that they were not welcome to come in. She also said that she felt “victimized.”

“He asked if he had permission to enter the house and I said no,” she said, “that’s pretty clear.”

She says that police entered despite being asked not to.

“I said no, but they came forward anyway,” she added.

By law, police officers can only enter a home without a search warrant in very specific cases, such as if the property is controlled by an arrested person, or if somebody they wish to arrest is inside.

In all other cases, the police are bound by Code B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, which requires consent to be gained in writing from the occupier of a residence “if practicable.”

The student who held the party claims that she was not asked to provide any kind of written consent.

She also says that she was not informed of the proposed extent of the search or warned that anything seized may be produced in evidence. These are both requirements under PACE Code B.

The sergeant leading the search said that the dog indicated one of the party guests “was either carrying or had recently been carrying drugs”. However, when he was searched, nothing was found.

The guest, an English student, denied that he had been near any substances.

“I wasn’t carrying any drugs and I hadn’t been in contact with any that night or for a long time. I’m not quite sure why the dog made that suggestion,” he said.

An expert on drug detection with dogs said that the search “appears to have been unlawful.”

Amber Marks, a lecturer in law at King’s College London and expert in olfactory surveillance, said, “The fact that no cannabis was found shows how unreasonable it is for the police to rely on canine intelligence.”

She continued, “The matter should be investigated and it sounds as if the occupier of the premises should make a formal complaint against the police. It is important to ensure that the police keep within the limits imposed upon them by the law.

“This is one of the worst cases I’ve heard of.”

The party’s host also questioned the efficacy of the drugs dog.

“The dog jumped on [the guest who was searched] and he doesn’t even smoke at all. The dog clearly doesn’t have a clue,” she said.

She also accused the police of heavy-handedness.

“There were four to six of them. The ones at the back were trooping in but didn’t seem to know what they were doing.

“It was ridiculous. One of the female officers said that they had so many people because they had to protect themselves. Do we look like junkies? They didn’t apologise for coming in.”

The sergeant who led the search said he was satisfied that the premises were entered “lawfully and with consent.”

A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said that “Police officers do have powers to further search and detain once in a property if they have reason to believe drugs are on the premises. In this case they did as the drugs dog made an indication that a person was, or had recently, been in possession of drugs.

“We do take complaints about our service seriously and do have a proper process for dealing with them. If anyone was not satisfied with the police action on this evening they should contact Thames Valley Police Quality of Service Unit.”

House searches: Your rights

The rights of police to enter a private residence are governed by Code B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Police can enter your house:
– If they have a search warrant
– If they wish to make an arrest
– If you or another occupier has been arrested

Otherwise, police may only enter with your consent. In this case, officers should, if practicable:

– Inform you that you are not obliged to consent
– Specify the proposed purpose and extent of the search, such as which parts of your house they intend to enter
– Warn you that anything seized may be produced in evidence
– Obtain your consent in writing

Police are excepted from these rules in certain circumstances. If in doubt, you should comply with police and register a complaint at a later stage.

Boat Club President Nick Brodie has been strongly criticised after he filmed a video of Lightweight Cox Colin Groshong punching an Imperial rower to the ground.

Brodie subsequently posted the video on Facebook and acknowledged that “loads of people have seen it.”

Friends of Blues rowers who were shown the video have branded it “disgusting” and “disgraceful.”

The incident took place during a rowing regatta in Wroclaw, Poland two weeks ago. 8 teams, including one from Imperial College, competed against a Blues boat in the event, which was fully paid for by the Polish organisers.

On the evening of May 11 all of the rowers went on a boat trip with a barbeque and bar. Following this, many of the rowers went on to a club.

The incident occurred in the gentleman’s toilet of the club. In the build-up to the punch, Groshong was exchanging comments with a rower from Imperial College about St Catz and summer eights.

One witness said it was a “jovial conversation which got heated.” There were “insults from both [and then] it got a bit more personal,” he added.

Nick Brodie, who coxed the winning boat in this year’s Boat Race, said “it was provoked. It was a bit of banter, they were play fighting; they were both winding each other up.”

Cherwell has seen a copy of the video recorded by Brodie on his mobile phone. The first person appears to say “walk away, walk away, walk away motherfucker” before punching the second person.

The victim is knocked to the floor by the punch. He then gets up and asks, “What the fuck is wrong with you?”

The first person continues, “You fucking smacked shit out of [insulted] me.” After around thirty seconds of shouting, in which the victim stands facing the camera, the video ends with an unidentified voice saying “Right, Colin, Colin, enough, enough.”

In a statement, Groshong maintained that the attack was not unprovoked. He said, “However it may seem on video , the incident was provoked.”

He did however express regret for his actions. “Although provoked, I should not have reacted in the way that I did and I am very sorry for my actions.

I have never acted so appallingly in my life and I regret that this incident ever occurred. Furthermore, I had no knowledge that this disgusting behaviour of mine was being filmed.”

Following the trip, Nick Brodie put the video online on his Facebook page and tagged a large number of Blues rowers in the video.

The Boat Club President said he wasn’t able to explain his actions. He said, “I don’t really know why I filmed it or why I put it up on Facebook.” The video has subsequently been taken down.

Brodie claims that he thought he’d limited the number of people who could see the video, but admitted that he was aware a lot of people had seen the footage.

He said, “When I put it up I thought I’d restricted it to a certain number of people and it turns out everyone could see it. “

However, he confirmed that he was aware that people at other universities had seen the video and added, “I know loads of people have seen it.” Friends of some of the Blues rowers alleged that the rowers found the video hilarious.

One said, “I think it’s disgusting that they filmed it and that they see it as some kind of amusement. I can accept the fact that this kind of thing happens, it’s just the fact that they put this on the internet.”

Another added, “when I got shown the video the guy who showed me responded with laughter so I walked out of the room feeling pretty disgusted and sickened.”

A large number of comments were posted under the video on Facebook, many from Blues rowers.

In addition, Henry Sheldon, President of the Oxford University Lightweight Rowing Club, wrote on Brodie’s wall, “Thank you for posting that video of Colin, its [sic] considerably brightened up my day in the library. I literally laughed till I cried.”

Brodie replied on Sheldon’s wall, “Its [sic] up there with the funniest things I have ever seen.”

As a result of the incident the Imperial rower received a black eye along with a cut on his cheek.

Friends of Mr Groshong suggested that the incident was out of character.

One Blues rower who wished to remain anonymous said, “He’s not the kind of guy who’d go and get aggressive at all.”

Nick Brodie added that Colin had “never punched anyone ever before.”