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 

OUAFC President David Robinson has been announced as the coach for this year’s Colleges XI Varsity side to face the Cambridge Kestrels on Saturday 1st March 2008. Robinson, of Worcester College, is currently racing through his FA coaching badges, and has extensive knowlegde of college football going back to his appearance in the Cuppers final as a fresher in 1998.The sqaud will be selected over the next fortnight, and then will have two weeks to prepare to take on a Kestrels side that has been together for the entire season. The match also provides a great opportunity to get noticed by next year’s Blues captain – as this year’s strikeforce of Tom Howell and Alex Toogood have proved.by Nik Baker

Lincoln 3 – 7 St. Anne's St Anne’s moved within a point of Worcester at the top of the JCR Premiership yesterday, comfortably despatching a sorry Lincoln side languishing at the bottom of the division. After a painful defeat to Wadham last week, Anne’s have bounced back confidently with a 4-0 rollover of Jesus and today’s 7-3 drubbing, and now lead the pack chasing down the reigning champions. Before this match Lincoln had picked up a single point from nine games, and it soon showed – this game was a contest for under a minute. The home side were left standing as Anne’s moved the ball quickly down the left wing, before Steve Clarke’s low cross was converted by hotshot Jacob Lloyd, bagging his ninth of the season and putting Anne’s in front after just 47 seconds. A second followed immediately, with Clarke’s deep free kick expertly knocked down by defender Chris Hollingdale, leaving Ed Border with the simplest of headed finishes. A third was quickly added, Robbie MacDonald racing onto keeper Mike Butler’s long kick before gently arcing his lob over the stranded keeper. ‘I’ve been looking for that assist all season’, cried Butler, but surely hadn’t anticipated the lack of a challenge from a single Lincoln defender. The punishment continued. Full back Andrew Royle powered down the left-flank, firing a cross across goal towards Border, who swivelled and finished from close range. 4-0 up after eight minutes, Anne’s were currently heading for a 45-0 victory. To their credit, Lincoln kept fighting. Very soon, striker Nicholas Long set off on a powerful counter-attacking run from the halfway line, beating two Anne’s defenders and leaving one on his backside before cutting in and sliding in a low finish. Yet Lincoln’s joy was shortlived. From kickoff, Anne’s immediately forced a corner to the right of the goal. It was cleared, but looped towards midfielder Steve Clarke, lurking well outside the box. Clarke, with a movement reminiscent of a combination of Zidane and Rooney, hit a volley which thundered unstoppably into the topleft hand corner of the Lincoln net, almost bursting it asunder. The satisfying clunk of the ball hitting the angle on its way in was replaced by an instant of stunned silence, before a yell of delight from every Anne’s player. Clarke set off on a mad sprint of celebration, only to be rugby tackled and disappear beneath a mass of mint-green shirts, with the prominent purple top of Butler at the top of the heap. Clarke was keen to make sure that this reporter had seen what was a true contender for goal of the season. A sixth soon followed, Stu Clarke bundling home after some silky wingplay from MacDonald. From this point on, the game went downhill, Anne’s missing a series of chances and Lincoln only flickering spasmodically. It remained 6-1 until half-time, after which Anne’s came out strongly. Lloyd and Crouch both went close, before Steve Clarke had a goal ruled out for offside – the first of three disallowed Anne’s goals that half. Soon after this, your intrepid reporter plunged into the fray, and had an up-close view of the majestic Border completing his hat-trick, holding off two vicious tackles before slotting past the keeper. As one Anne’s player said: ‘They were unable to fell the great oak’. Lincoln kept showing pride, fighting back with two good goals – first Long breaking again from an Anne’s corner before superbly crashing the ball into the top corner, and then Matthew Flood rising well to head home from a corner. But the game was long over as a contest. Border came close to a fourth, denied only by a superb save from Lincoln keeper James Nutton, whose fine second half performance was key to Anne’s not adding to their tally. The final score of 7-3 reflected Lincoln’s impressive doggedness in the second half, but also the understandably lax finishing of an Anne’s side who had wrapped up victory long ago, and will remember this game only for that first, thrilling, seventeen-minute period which saw them go 6-1 up, and included the best goal of their season. They now face an exciting run-in, competing with Oriel, Teddy Hall and Wadham in the pursuit of the mighty Worcester.by George Kynaston

…I'd introduce personality tests
Remember how at interviews there was that boasty dick that let everyone know their ancestry guaranteed them a place here and how the people who came to your school to chat about Oxford said that guys like that never got in, it was always the down to earth ones? Well, your cool interview friends got a big fat rejection and that dick is in college right now bragging about spending last night being sick on the chaplain’s cat. Inane prologue at an end, I am brought to my point: if I were vice chancellor, I would require applicants to pass a personality test to get an offer.
The University prides itself on being so academically focused, but surely a little rule bending would do a world of good. After all, Philip Pullman got a third, Lawrence of Arabia was a vandal and Jesus Christ didn’t even go here. It’s the interesting people, not those with scary module marks, who make a splash in the world and further this great institution’s good name. In addition to meeting an exacting academic standard, I would require students to have a certain level of intrigue, looks and general lack of annoying features.
Now obviously the Fellows aren’t really qualified to decide who’s cool enough to get in, so I think the choice would have to be made by the young and the beautiful. Interviewees would have to stand on a podium and sell themselves to the JCR. Knock knock jokes, acrobatics, penis puppetry – all those things that the process currently, insensibly, ignores – could be pulled out of the bag to convince the current students that one would make the college a more exciting place. Or even better, the whole thing could be televised and the event decided by public vote: ‘Brain Academy.’ The money raised from the calls could put to rest all these funding issues and, since your average Billy loves a maverick, Oxford would certainly be a more exciting place.
Instead of rugby drinks every Thursday, non-scripted fun would be had as there wouldn’t be the conversationless void that needs filling with chants. The ingratiating hacking would disappear as well, since the people who would be ‘in’ don’t suck up to no shit, man. There’s nothing like reality TV to show when someone is trying to blag their way into somewhere, so only people with a genuine interest in their subject would get in. This would rid Oxford of those who had just enough force-fed interview technique and ritalin-induced revision to gain a place here they’re now happily squandering.
It might seem that I am presuming myself among the elite; one of the cool kids. But please, gentle reader, do not attach to me such conceit. If I were vice chancellor I would be in by default, and whether I satisfied the criteria I laid down would be by the by. Without a hint of guilt, I would be fully abusing my power, ordering the finest freshers I could find to sit on my lap and jiggle their ladylumps. If all this seems a little superficial then remember: brains may build bridges, but only beauty can cross over them.by Jack Marley-Payne

The final blues league game against Worcester University is now essentially a shoot out for the title. Our victory over Bedford on Wednesday was complimented, rather unexpectedly, by Worcester dropping points against bottom of the table Northampton such that we were able to make up some lost ground and put ourselves back in with a chance of topping the final league tables. Granted Worcester are nominally still in pole position, needing only to hold us to a draw to finish above us, but we have been given another opportunity and the hope for a triumphant climax to the season will ensure that we will do everything in our power to get the victory. As far as I’m concerned this is just an important as the Varsity match. This is the culmination of everything we have done and put in place for the best part of the last year. This goes back to the last game of last season when we gained promotion, to the selection of the new committee for the upcoming season, through to the trials, the pre-season and every game last term. We have worked so hard and have overcome so many obstacles to put ourselves in this position and it will be a fitting tribute not just to the quality of our own team but the overall quality and excitement of the league in which we play that the title is to be decided in one single ‘winner takes all’ match. As we near the culmination of our BUSA season and the imminence of the varsity match becomes ever more apparent Martin Keown has decided to conduct our Sunday evening training sessions exclusively at the David Lloyd fitness centre, focussing on various circuits of plyometrics, weight training and spinning classes. This week we conducted exercises more specific to American football then traditional ’soccer’, encompassing a renewed focus on the mechanics of our running styles. However a rather worrying development, which raised numerous questions about the nature of team bonding at Arsenal, was Keown’s suggestion that in order to encourage greater confidence and a more relaxed attitude for one particular member of the squad, striker and social secretary Alex Toogood should somehow ‘arrange’ for said individual to spend some time in the company of ‘ladies of the night’. Its certainly doubtful that this rather dubious arrangement was the key to Thierry Henry’s success and Mr Toogood seemed somewhat bemused that such tasks were considered to fall under the remit of his responsibilities as social secretary. I’m sure more conventional and acceptable methods of building confidence and team spirit will be employed in preparation for Friday and we certainly hope that we will gain our rewards out there on the pitch.by Paul Rainford (Blues' Football Captain)