St Antony’s rowers have been accused of causing two major pile ups during Summer Eights last week, after manning their boat with a novice-rated Cox.

A Wadham Cox was injured twice and, as a result of the second incident, was unable to participate in Saturday’s race.

On Thursday Wadham’s crew was about to be bumped by St Antony’s Men’s second boat when Cox Rachel Levy put up her hand in concession.

However St Antony’s rowed on into Wadham, who were attempting to clear the racing line.

Levy said, “A couple of my Wadham rowers had fallen off their seats at the start, so we had to concede to St Antony’s in the first fifteen strokes or so.

“While I clearly put up my hand to concede, St Antony’s failed to lighten up and proceeded to row full speed  into my crew.”

The collision resulted in Levy being hit on the shoulder by St Antony’s bowman’s oar but the two boats remained entangled in the middle of the river, and the race was klaxoned.

However Tom Isherwood, President of St Antony’s Boat club, denied the accusations that St Antony’s caused the pile up on the river.

He said, “First, incidents like this are normally not the result of any negative intention or even recklessness (despite what the Wadham coaches who proceeded to harass and verbally abuse our crew throughout the week may think).

“Rather, they are an inevitable result of the chaos of Oxford bumps racing.”

On Friday, there was a  pile-up near ‘the gut’ which it has been alleged that St Antony’s initiated.

However, the separate incident which prevented Levy from rowing on Saturday was, she says, “partly everyone’s fault.”

Wadham’s rudder was smashed in the process and they had to be towed in by a launch.

Levy was unable to row in her race on Saturday as a result of the impact she had received to her back.

Isherwood spoke about the incident saying, “Friday of Eights saw a similarly dangerous situation, but with Wadham receiving a dangerous coxing fine and the St Antony’s crew receiving appreciation for being the only crew directly behind them to stop in time.”
Levy described the incident as “just the nature of bumps.”

She continued, “Rowing, while not normally a contact sport, does have its share of mishaps, collisions, broken bones, ejector crabs, etc.

“If you aren’t willing to accept those risks, then you shouldn’t be on the water, plain and simple.”

A man who broke into a tutor’s room in Wadham in February has been sentenced to four years in prison for burglary.

Jason Callaghan was given a sentence of three and a half years for burglary and attempted theft, and six months for assault.

Callaghan entered Giula Zanderighi’s room on February 10. Zanderighi, a Physics fellow, found him there at 7pm. When she discovered him he had moved a laptop and disconnected some cables.

She escorted Callaghan out of the college at which point he began to run on to South Parks Road, where Zanderighi pursued him, calling for help. He was caught and pinned to the ground by two men, until the police arrived. In the course of the struggle, he assaulted one of the men, having informed them that he had a knife.

Callaghan told police that he was “just using the toilet” and that “the door [of Zanderighi’s room] was open.” He claimed that the laptop had been knocked onto the floor after he had banged his head.

Callaghan, who later pleaded guilty to the crime, has 29 previous convictions since 1990 for over 80 offences, mostly for theft or criminal damage.

He was sentenced to three years in prison for breaking into a student’s bedroom in Lincoln College in October 2004, and 21 months for burglary of another college room in Wadham in November 2006. At the time of the latest offence he had been out of prison for two months.

The defence attorney rejected the supposition that Jason Callaghan was a dangerous man. The assault, he claimed, was a futile attempt to ward off his pursuers who had, “forcibly confronted him”.

Callaghan had been previously convicted of attempted robbery, but this was quashed. A pre-sentence report did not mention any risk of physical harm.

The judge told Callaghan that his catalogue of offences made “depressing reading”. She said, “Until you sort yourself out, there’s really not much hope for you outside in the community.” The crime, she said, was “unpleasant” but “a daytime offence in premises that were unoccupied.”

Callaghan’s offences are linked to a long-standing heroin addiction, and various psychological problems.

The court gave Joseph Valentine, one of the men who restrained Callaghan, a £250 Community Award for courage shown in pursuing him.

Wadham College Student Union has passed a motion to donate £300 to a student house party.

In a controversial decision made at the SU meeting last Sunday, students voted to financially assist the party which will take place later this week. The party will be open to all Wadham students, and will celebrate the birthday of the outgoing SU President, Leonora Sagan.

Those in support of the motion were enthusiastic about the outcome. One student, who wishes to remain anonymous, noted “That this important motion has been successful proves one thing – that Wadhamites are ready to fight for their right to party.”

Nonetheless, while the motion received near unanimous support, some Wadham students are sceptical about the SU’s backing of the party.

A second year Modern Linguist expressed concern about the motives behind the decision, saying, “The money may have come from the Entz fund, but £300 pounds is far too much money to be given to a house party. In any case, the world’s problems are caused by drink and drugs, not solved by them. Friendship and good times are simple and free, and I think we should all sit down on the grass and have some old fashioned fun, like we used to.”

Defending the SU’s support of the party, Sagan stated, “The Student Union is a democratic institution and thus, since the motion was passed in an SU meeting, it is only fair that the Wadhamites receive the money for their party.

“Any members of the student body who are against the donation of money had the opportunity to voice their concerns before the motion went to vote. That the motion was passed almost unanimously reflects the fact that, despite our commitment to a wide range of political issues, Wadham SU still loves a good old rave.”

In accordance with the motion, the party will be advertised on the Wadham students’ mailing list, so that invitations are sent to “even those people who aren’t fortunate enough to be Facebook friends with anyone from the host house.”

The organisers of the Dalai Lama’s visit to Oxford have predicted that as many as 1000 protesters could assemble outside the Sheldonian Theatre, where he is due to speak today.

From 9am onwards, Buddhist protesters, led by the Western Shugden Society, will be on Broad Street to confront the Dalai Lama with allegations of threats and intimidation from his representatives. Protesters have followed the Dalai Lama throughout his visit to the UK.

They want to encourage the Dalai Lama to lift “an illegal and aggressive ban on a much loved, centuries old Buddhist prayer.”

The prayer, known as ‘Dorje Shugden,’ is said to have been a traditional part of the Buddhist religion for 400 years, which the Dalai Lama is said to have practised himself until he was 50 years old. He is currently 72 years old.

In a press conference yesterday, a Kelsang Pema spokesperson for the Western Shugden Society, said: “The Dalai Lama has imposed this ban and has left Buddhists no choice…he is impeding human rights.”

The Western Shugden Society claims that 900 monks have been expelled from monasteries by Dalai Lama representatives, and Dorje Shugden practicioners are “receiving threats and are ostracised from communities because they practise the prayer.”

The Dalai Lama has previously commented on his decision to ban the prayer.

He said, “The fifth Dalai Lama considered this an evil force, evil spirit…

The 13th Dalai Lama also placed restrictions on this evil spirit. So then I realised my mistake and then I stopped completely worshipping this.”

The Western Shugden Society claims that the Dalai Lama has “two hats; one political and one religious.

“There is a false perception that he [Dalai Lama] is the leader of Buddhism. He has inherited the title through reincarnation… three quarters of Buddhist would not say that he is their spiritual leader.”

When asked if the Society would be concerned that they would be seen as pro- China, a spokesperson said: “We are not connected to the Chinese although the Dalai Lama says that we are…this is religious discrimination not political.”

An increasing number of Oxford students are putting themselves at risk by using dangerous drugs to aid their revision.

A government-commissioned report, co-authored by an Oxford don, has warned students of the potential psychological disorders arising from the continued use of drugs for revision.

However, students continue to ignore such warnings, putting themselves at risk.

A finalist, who wished to remain anonymous, said he has been taking “study drugs” on-and-off throughout university, with the dosage and frequency of his drug taking rising dramatically in his final year.

He said, “I’ve used drugs to do my work through every stage of my degree and that includes both submitted work and final examinations.”

He said he started with taking ephedrine, a nasal decongestant, in a cocktail mix with caffeine and aspirin – commonly known as ‘ECA stacks’, a component found in weight loss pills, that work to speed up the metabolism and cause food energy to burn faster.

It is a popular supplement also taken by body builders before workouts due to the increased amount of energy and alertness.

He said “I, too, started taking it for gym work but then saw the alertness effects. I thought, ‘This is interesting,’ and started doing research on such drugs.”

The student claimed that he was aware of the risks of the drugs he was taking as he researched them both online and in the drugs section of the Radcliffe Science Library.

The finalist said that it was here that he learned of another drug, modafinil, which he was able to purchase online.

He said, “a single box or thirty tablets of modafinil cost $125. The order was made online, processed at a very old office in London, money was sent to an account in Panama, and the drug came from Turkey.”

The student admitted that he was worried that ephedrine, while legal in the UK, is banned in the US, having been blamed for a number of deaths. He said preferred modafinil over ephedrine because it was more effective, saying he was able to stay awake for five days in a row.

He added “the come down is so bad so I couldn’t do this more than once, but modafinil really is that effective. But your body aches all over and I needed to sleep for 17 hours straight afterwards.”

The finalist says he was “forced to” rely on “study drugs” to do work because he “hated the degree so much.”

“I hate the subject, I hate the tutorial system, and I felt my work just was never good enough. When your motivation for work collapses then you end up using these substances.”

A report in the Academy of Medical Sciences, which was commissioned by the government in 2006, identified a new group of psychoactive drugs that act on the brain called ‘cognition enhancers’.

The report defines ‘cognition enhancers’ as drugs used to treat attention, perception, learning, memory, language, planning and decision-making disorders, which also have the potential to enhance cognitive performance in healthy people as well as those with neurological or cognitive disorders.

Sir Gabriel Horn, chair of the report, said, “Cognition enhancers can potentially enhance brain performance in a variety of ways, for instance to improve short-term memory or speed of thought.”

The report called for an assessment of the long and short-term effects of using cognition enhancers and recommends ongoing monitoring of their use in non-medical contexts.

The report lists six categories of drugs available on prescription, such as modafinil, which is used to treat narcolepsy, ritalin and related amphetamines for attention deficit disorder, and donepazil for Alzheimer’s disease.

The student, who has now finished his finals, said he took these drugs while “actually sitting exams.” However, he denies that he had an advantage over those students who did not take drugs.

“The drugs don’t help you write stuff. It motivates you to do exams and I needed them because I felt so shit I wouldn’t write anything without them,” he explained.

A spokesperson for the University said, “we would strongly advise students against the practice of taking drugs that have not been specifically prescribed to them as this is dangerous and can be illegal.”

The spokesperson added that students “who are struggling to cope personally or academically, or who have any kind of drug problem“ should contact one of the many support or counselling services in Oxford.

However, the finalist disagreed with this advice. He said, “it takes three to four weeks to schedule a counseling session. Tutors are not easy to talk to and the peer support program – why would you want to tell your problems to people who are in the same college as you?”

He added, “before coming to Oxford, I always thought of myself as someone who wouldn’t have to rely on these drugs. But, you do kind of feel helpless sometimes.

“I regret that I had to rely on these drugs but I don’t regret having taken them.”

Students may no longer be able to propose motions directly to OUSU Council if plans for radical reforms to the decision-making structure go ahead.

OUSU plans to ensure that all student motions are directed through a sub-committee which will be able to discuss and amend the proposal.

Currently, any two students can propose a motion directly to Council, which meets on alternate Fridays, where it will be discussed, amended, and voted on.

If the suggested changes are carried out, then all motions will have to go through the subcommittee unless they can gather 50 signatures.

The Review group states: “Experience in recent years shows that this has frequently led to incoherent and contradictory policies being passed that can be potentially damaging for the Student Union.”

OUSU President Martin McCluskey said that this will help give OUSU the “robust decision-making process” demanded by the government’s 2006 Charities Act.

He added that the current system of proposing a motion to a full council can be “terrifying” for students.  He added that the process of amendment by sub-committees would also mean that motions are “really well thought-out”, and that block voting in Council would be less likely.

He was keen to emphasise, “None [of the committees] are meeting behind closed doors.”

However James Dray, an ex-Returning Officer for OUSU, opposed the changes.  He said, “I do not think that it is in the interests of democracy to have apparatchiks deciding what can and cannot be voted on.”

He added, “These committees are likely to be dominated by hacks who are going to be even more intimidating in small meeting room in the bowels of OUSU towers than they are in Council.”

Worcester JCR President, Maanas Jain, reacted positively to the change, saying, “The time we have in council would be more effective.” He added that the democratic aspect was not being removed in any way.

An OUSU rep, who asked to remain anonymous, also said he was fully in support of the changes. He added that it would help “stop OUSU being bickering amongst people who don’t agree.”

Stefan Baskerville, the JCR President of Univ, argued, “OUSU Council is currently inaccessible and seen as out of touch, ” and that the proposals would be “an improvement on the status quo.”

It is currently thought that while anyone can currently bring a motion direct to OUSU Council the vast majority of motions are brought by OUSU Sabbatical officers.

Joe Mullan, the JCR President at St Peter’s College, said, “Some change is definitely required – as the current Council system does not work. It’s almost certain that the proposed new system will substantially increase policy coherence, something which is really needed.

“The changes will encourage more people to become involved in thepolicy making process by bypassing the need for them to have to make their case to Council, which can be quite intimidating for first time speakers.”

OUSU Council will not, however, have the power to amend motions, though it can make recommendations.
 

A Cherwell survey has revealed that students are compromising college security by failing to take precautions against break-ins and thefts.

The results coincide with a recent burglary at St John’s College where a thief entered the grounds and gained access to students’ rooms. A man reportedly entered four or five students’ rooms, and stole a laptop and other items.

150 students took part in the survey, 59% of whom said they had loaned their access card or key to another student, and 11% of whom said they had loaned them to someone who wasn’t a student.

Over half of students said they had let someone into college they didn’t recognise and only 5% claimed always to ask a person’s name if they don’t know who they are.

Some 37% of students said they have lost their access card or key one or more times, and 31% that they wouldn’t report such a loss to the college immediately.

A number of JCR Presidents were concerned about college security upon hearing the statistics.

Dani Quinn, of Merton, said, “One area of concern for many of us is that we receive no warning when workmen (e.g. electricians) are going to be knocking on our doors to do checks. It’s embarrassing to ask for ID, and students often feel quite vulnerable when they have unidentified strangers in their rooms.”

St Peter’s College has taken steps recently to reduce the chances of college security being jeopardised by students’ carelessness.

Joel Mullan, JCR President commented, “The main college site is quite well protected. In the last year, college have taken difficult, unpopular, but necessary decisions to enhance security – such as locking both of the peripheral gates overnight. Other things like the recent successful request for overnight closure of Bulwarks Lane will undoubtedly also improve things.

“Security at the annexes is more questionable – a few weeks ago there was an attempted burglary – but we’ll be working with college in the next few months and suggesting improvements which can be made,” he added.

In response to the survey, one third year at Worcester College said, “I leave my door open all the time. Sometimes we see guys wandering about our flat but we assume they’re there for maintenance.”

Caroline Thomas, Home Bursar of New College, commented, “I doubt that any Home Bursar or Head Porter would be surprised by these statistics.

As part of the Freshers’ Week induction, New College makes it clear that most thefts occur from rooms that have been left unlocked or because students have allowed unknown people to follow them into a building or staircase. In other words, students are warned of the risks from day one.”

The Domestic Bursar of University College, Elizabeth Crawford said, “The College is constantly trying to raise awareness on these issues (via e mail, electronic notices and verbal advice through the JCR).

We are acutely conscious that our buildings and community are only as safe as College members allow them to be. But it is also important to get the balance right and not make students feel that they are living in a locked down and heavily regulated environment.”

“We have also taken out insurance against losses with Endsleigh for students who live in college accommodation, and the terms of this insurance take full account of students’ apparently relaxed approach to security. Thames Valley Police always start from the assumption that any security measures put in place are actually used,” she said.

Students have also been warned by Thames Valley Police in recent weeks to beware of burglars who follow students home and gain unauthorised access to colleges and student housing.

Ian Ashpole, a student who had something stolen during the St John’s burglary said, “He got into my room because I left my door unlocked – that’s how he got into anyone’s room. I’ve been locking my door since then, though”.

A message to members of the JCR following the incident said, “Make sure that if you leave your room you lock your door, especially if you have valuable items in your room such as phones, laptops etc.

Even if you are leaving for a minute or two this is ample time for a professional thief to operate. Also please try to ensure that the doors at the bottom of staircases are kept shut where possible, if they are left wide open then they provide no security whatsoever.”

Hertford students have been shocked and saddened this week by the resignation of popular Head Porter Steve Jamieson, following managerial disputes and clashes over internal College politics.

Exact details of Jamieson’s departure have been clouded by the reluctance of both the College and the JCR to speak out, leaving the majority of Hertford students still unclear over the exact reasons for his resignation.

A Facebook group set up in protest has gained over 300 members under the title, ‘Hertford College in support of Steve Jamieson’.

On the group wall, ex-JCR President Thomas Lowe suggested Jamieson’s resignation had been strongly provoked by College actions.

Lowe wrote, “Steve’s role as Head Porter had been expanded over the past few years because the College needed someone to be fire marshall etc.

Then the College appointed a Home Bursar. Steve (and the Lodge) and the Home Bursar came into conflict over who was in control of what. This was exacerbated by Steve being better qualified than the Home Bursar and having more experience of the College.

“The bureaucratic turf war came to a head when the College began an ‘efficiency drive’ and focused on the Lodge. Steve asked for mediation and for a public apology from the College over what he felt was bullying of Lodge staff. The College refused and he felt his position was untenable. He therefore handed in his resignation.”

At the bottom of the comment, Lowe added: “*Disclaimer: This is my interpretation of events. Any references to real individuals/events is entirely incidental.”

Current JCR President Jon Colclough wrote, “All I can say is that Steve has told me he would prefer to stay, we would prefer him to stay, but he is leaving. I would say that is reason enough to express dissatisfaction.”

However, Colclough advised that tact was required, saying “Steve’s clearly been a great asset to the College, and a real help to all of the students here. He’s always done his best to help anyone in the JCR and it’s really sad to see him go.

“However, today I received a letter from the Principal expressing his sadness and that of the SCR that Steve was leaving (which, in fairness, was a nice touch from the Principal).

“Any further letters/protests/hunger strikes aren’t going to suddenly transform the situation. Steve hasn’t been sacked, he has resigned, so any further action on our part isn’t going to change anything (and I’m not entirely sure what else College could do anyway, other than bunging him a few million quid). Internal staffing politics isn’t necessarily black and white.

“The College has heard our opinion and understands how much the JCR appreciates Steve. The best thing to do now rather than getting overly militant is to sign Steve’s leaving card when it is passed around next week and meet him at the Lodge when he leaves on Friday.”

Jamieson himself, who was previously a scout at Hertford and played 1st XI football for the College, was unwilling to comment on the details of his departure. He declared how deeply sad he was to be leaving Hertford, saying, “It’s just a shame. I’ve loved the last three and a half years here, I thought I’d stay here all my life.”

“I have always had the interests and the welfare of the students at heart. It’s just a shame that certain members of the College don’t share my views.”

“It’s all about the students – these guys are fantastic, they are like family.”

Jamieson is an exceptionally popular figure around Hertford, and this has been reflected by the overwhelming weight of student tributes towards him. Alex Woolgar, creator of the Facebook group, called him “one of Hertford College’s greatest assets, and a credit to the College. His professionalism is exemplary, and he’s a fantastic guy too.

“It is absurd that Hertford is letting him go, considering his outstanding service to the College and its members.”

Tim Boothman, JCR Treasurer at Hertford, added that Steve “will be sorely missed by all at College, including the vast majority of the JCR, MCR and SCR, as well as the other staff.”

“He was an extremely professional, competent and friendly person who kept College functioning as it should, the first port of call for anyone with a query.”

Another undergraduate, Qu Hsueh Ming, called Jamieson “an absolute hero”, adding that he was “frankly disgusted that Hertford are treating him so poorly. No doubt he’ll boss whatever he’s doing next, but Hertford won’t be the same without his dry wit.”

Finalist Rohan Kandasamy echoed his sentiments, saying “Steve was the first person in Hertford I met when I visited the College for the first time. It was partly because of him that I applied here. He can’t leave! He’s too friendly!”

Elsewhere in the group, affectionate tributes have been made to Jamieson’s attributes. According to Lowe, “There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Steve Jamieson has allowed to live.” Woolgar added, “when Steve Jamieson goes swimming, he doesn’t get wet. The water gets Steve Jamiesoned.”

Hertford College declined to comment on Jamieson’s departure.

Photo: Oxford University 

Oxford University launched its biggest ever fund-raising drive on Wednesday in a bid to raise a minimum of £1.25bn.

The campaign is to be fronted by several prominent patrons including David Cameron, Michael Palin, Richard Dawkins and Ian Hislop. It is the largest ever to be organised by a European academic institution.

It aims to sustain and enhance Oxford’s international reputation as an academic institution and to ensure that students from under-privileged backgrounds are not deterred from applying. The campaign intends to make admission to Oxford University “needs-blind.”

One of the key areas the campaign aims to target is the financial assistance offered to undergraduate and postgraduate students.
A spokesperson for the University Development Office, Susan Cunningham, said that she hoped that students from poorer-backgrounds are not currently deterred from applying to Oxford, but  admitted that there was a problem that was not currently being addressed sufficiently.

She said, “There is currently a huge amount done to encourage anyone to apply to Oxford if they have the academic ability. But we are not yet in an ideal position.

“We have one of the most generous undergraduate provision schemes, but the situation is not the same for graduates. We need to improve this.”

It has been alleged that the campaign is an attempt by Oxford University to compete with the larger American universities such as Harvard and Yale, which can charge higher fees and attract large donations from alumnae.

Cunningham said, “Our level of endowments is less than a quarter of our equivalents in the US. We know we need to improve this in order to move forwards.”

The move also aims to increase the University’s financial independence from the government, although Cunningham was keen to emphasise that there were “no negative motives behind the campaign.”

As well as encouraging applications from students from all backgrounds, the drive hopes to fund improved infrastructure in the University.

The money raised will go towards the building of  a new humanities and mathematical institute on the site of the former Radcliffe Infirmary. Important developments are also being made to the Bodleian library and to the Ashmolean Museum.

The Vice-Chancellor Dr John Hood spoke of the necessity of the campaign, saying, “It must significantly increase the University’s endowment if it is to establish a strong philanthropic foundation for the future.”

Cunningham was reluctant to give an estimated time period for the money to be raised saying, “There is no explicit time scale, we would prefer to base our time estimates on the success achieved each year.”

She praised the willingness of the patrons of the campaign to get involved, speaking of David Cameron’s enthusiasm for the project, and also adding, “Michael Palin is narrating a film about the University which is accompanying the campaign.”

Dame Vivien Duffield, Chairman of the Campaign, also discussed the importance of the campaign.

She said,“We are the custodians of the spirit, and the intellectual brilliance, of the University of Oxford.

“I passionately believe that the task before us is to guarantee Oxford’s future pre-eminence in a world now changing so fast that we must lead or fall behind.

“For learning and progress in the world, and Britain’s place in it, there can be no greater investment that in the University of Oxford. I urge you to join with us.”

Cunningham was also keen to echo this message. She said, “Our campaign supports what Oxford is all about, and that is the students.

“We will all benefit from the improvements that will arise form this campaign. It is an exciting moment in the history of the university and I would urge any students who have an opinion on any aspect of the campaign to get in touch.”

Since 2004, there have been more than 20,000 donors (individuals, foundations and other organisations) to the University and the pre-launch campaign has raised around £575m.