A female Oxford student was robbed and chased at knife-point in the early hours of Tuesday morning on Marston Road. The Oriel student was listening to her iPod as she walked along Marston Road just after midnight, unaware that a a man was following her on a bicycle. The man grabbed her and threatened her with a 12-inch knife but the student resisted and both she and her attacker fell to the ground. A passer-by tried to help her run away but the man chased them both, brandishing the knife. The pair escaped after flagging down a passing car.The incident, which took place near the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, was reported to the police immediately. Detective Constable Ian Spencer, of Thames Valley Police, said, “I am appealing for any witnesses to this upsetting incident to come forward as they may have vital information. It is possible that the attacker was injured and I would ask friends or relatives to be aware and to come forward to help us stop any more frightening attacks.”The attacker is described as being a male of Asian or Latin-American appearance and in his late twenties. He is between 5ft 6ins and 5ft 9ins and of medium build. He has a rounded face and was wearing a dark jacket with a hooded top underneath on the night of the attack.In an email to Oriel students the College’s Dean, James Methven, said, “The student in question is shaken but not hurt.” Methven advised students to be cautious when walking alone after dark. He said, “Will everybody please take a moment to think about habitual safety out on the streets at night. It would be foolish to create a disproportionate sense of fear on the part of students, but, equally, it would be irresponsible not to remind people to watch out.”Tom Callard, Oriel JCR president said that he believed the girl was now ok and that he was impressed with the College’s quick response. He said, “I hope Oriel students continue to feel safe in Oxford, and I am sure with the support of the College and JCR they can. It is always a shock when something like this happens, but if it makes us all become a little safer then we could avoid anything more serious happening in the future.” In response to the attack, the JCR has purchased rape alarms which are to be made available to all students.Louise Randall, OUSU officer for Welfare and Opportunities said, “This vicious attack further emphasises the importance of students taking care of their personal safety, particularly at night. Whenever possible students should always avoid walking alone, and make sure that they are fully alert by not listening to iPods or using mobile phones.”She said that schemes such as the Safety Bus or Walk Safe are provided by OUSU to ensure that students are always able to get home safely, and encouraged students to make use of them. OUSU also provide JCRs with alarms to be handed out to students. Many colleges also provide taxi funds. She added, “All these schemes are futile… unless students use them. Don’t take the risk.”A spokesperson for Oxford University said, “We take the safety and security of all our students extremely seriously. We would ask students to look out for each other, especially for friends who may be travelling home late at night. While all incidents of this kind should be reported directly to the police, the University offers a range of services to support those who have been the victims of crime.”by Nadya Thorman

Oxford University is one of the most generous investors in student bursaries, spending over £1.8m a year, according to new figures.The statistics, gathered by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) for the academic year 2006-7, reveal that Oxford is spending significantly more than most other UK universities.On average, higher education institutions spent a quarter of their additional income on supporting students. In contrast Oxford spent 35.2%, a total of £1,867,000. This equated to one in five new students receiving a bursary.Students have praised the University for its Oxford Opportunity Bursary scheme, which aims to aid students from underprivileged backgrounds.One student who benefits from the scheme said that she would not have been able to attend Oxford without the additional money.Rachael Featherstone, a mathematician at New College, said, “The Oxford Opportunity Bursary has enabled me to attend Oxford University without getting into financial difficulty (excluding the usual debt that most students accumulate). “I found out about the Oxford Opportunity Bursary whilst researching how much university life would cost.“The scheme made studying at Oxford a possibility for me and thus it did influence my decision to study here,” she added.Paul Clark, Head of Student Funding and Access at Oxford University, stressed the importance of such financial support. Clark said, “We strongly believe that no student should be deterred from studying at Oxford for financial reasons. We did everything we could to publicise our bursaries, through poster and advertising campaigns, targeted emails and a dedicated website. In addition we have substantially increased our resources for widening participation and outreach activities.”OUSU Vice-President for Access and Academic Affairs, James Lamming, also commended the University’s work. He said, “I am pleased to see the University has invested sums above the national average  in their efforts attracting the brightest and best students, which helps demonstrate that studying at Oxford depends on your brain and not your background.”Lamming added, “The bursaries are very important in ensuring that your financial situation does not influence where you study, and are a vital tool for encouraging students from poorer backgrounds to apply to Oxford and for supporting these students whilst they are studying.”by Katherine Hall 

The University has failed to block animal rights activists from protesting outside graduation ceremonies after a High Court judge threw out its request for a restraining order.Lawyers acting for the University had tried to create an exclusion zone around the Sheldonian Theatre, arguing that protesters ruined the “peace and quiet” of the ceremonies.However Mr Justice Treacy refuted the claim during the sitting last week, saying that there was no evidence that the protests posed a threat to students.The University was successful in securing an extension of the injunction restraining protest around the new animal testing laboratory. The exclusion zone was expanded by a further 100 metres down Mansfield Road, taking it just past Mansfield College.Mr Justice Treacy said that he was satisfied that once the laboratory was operational, staff and students needed protection from the threats of activists.In the past, animal rights groups have threatened violent attacks against the University.
The judge said, “Unless protected, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that intimidatory conduct would result from the unrestrained gathering of protesters.”A spokesperson for the University said that extending the exclusion zone around the laboratory was necessary.They said, “We are pleased that the court recognised the need to extend the exclusion zone slightly.
“As an institution deeply committed to freedom of speech, we respect people’s right to protest and to make their views heard within the law.However, we will protect our staff and our students and those working with us from harassment and intimidation while going about their lawful business.“The University remains firmly committed to the completion of a new facility to rehouse animals used in potentially life-saving research. The safety of staff, students and others remains the number one priority.” The new extension comes into effect immediately and covers Speak Campaigns, the Animal Liberation Front, and the Save Newchurch Guinea Pigs Campaign.The injunction also states that protesters should not picket or demonstrate within 100 yards of the residence of any protected person, anywhere in the country. Furthermore, it makes it illegal for a campaigner to try to identify any vehicle entering or leaving the exclusion zone.
The laboratory is expected to come into operation before a full trial examines the University’s concerns at Easter.by Omotola Akerele

The owner of The Bridge nightclub has refuted rumours that the club is to close.

Responding to claims made in the Oxford Student, Simon Walker, one of the owners of The Bridge, has made it clear that the club is extremely unlikely to close any time in the next five years. 

In an article published yesterday entitled ‘Bridge and Risa to close’ the Oxford Student suggested that five nightclubs, located on a patch of central Oxford land, would be demolished.

It alleged that Christ Church had hatched a plan with Oxford City Council that would see The Bridge, Anuba, Bar Risa, Thirst and Ocean and Collins bulldozed, along with a number of other buildings.

However, Bridge co-owner Simon Walker told Cherwell that the plan would not be happening any time soon.

Walker said, “Our lease is for another three and a half years on this site, so it won’t close in the time of any current students in Oxford. It’s indicated that we will then be given a yearly licence, which will allow us to operate year on year.

“We’re perfectly comfortable with our lease,” he added.

Balreick Srai, owner of student club night promotions company Rock Oxford also said that the club would not be closing soon.

“I don’t think it’s going to be in the timescale of any Oxford students,” he said.

Walker also pointed to the recent lease extension secured by another building on the same piece of land. “Another premises has just been given a two-year extension on a new lease which now takes it through to the middle of 2013.

“Assuming Christ Church honours this lease – and I’m sure they honour all leases – they’re not going to knock down that block and they’re therefore not going to knock us down either.”

The Oxford Student has suggested that Christ Church could terminate the leases early if it could agree compensation with the tenants. However, Walker strongly refuted this, saying that such a move would be “very unusual” and “very difficult.”

“Once a lease is signed it is very difficult to offer a great deal of compensation to end the lease early,” he added.

In the unlikely event that the nightclubs are forced to close in 2013 Walker stated that the Bridge would, in all likelihood, relocate. He said, “We certainly intend to have a Bridge nightclub in Oxford for many years to come.”

Balreick said that he couldn’t see the Bridge or other nightclubs simply closing. “I’m pretty sure people would try to find alternative venues. I can’t see that not happening,” he said.

One Oxford club promoter said that, as the commercial rents currently earn Christ Church considerable sums, there is no real impetus for them to seek to end the leases early.

One of the three students found by police swimming naked in Castle Mill Stream last week has spoken out against the dangers of binge drinking.Joe Wellington, a second year physicist at LMH, writes on page 11 of this week’s Cherwell, “Whilst trapped under the bridge, with my life hanging in the balance, I experienced life changing thoughts. Only then, when I was close to death, did I realise how utterly stupid everything I had done in the last few hours had been.”Last week it was reported that police had rescued three LMH students from dangerously fast-flowing waters near Hythe Bridge street. One of the students, Joe Wellington, initially refused to be rescued and swam away from the police. He was swept downstream under two bridges and into a weir, from where he finally climbed to safety.
PC Philips, one of the policeman involved, said at the time that Wellington was lucky to survive.
“Luckily he managed to come through the weir with only cuts and bruises but, if the weir had been locked, he would have hit it at speed and almost certainly been killed,” he said.Speaking exclusively to Cherwell Wellington said, “It was unbelievably stupid – I was definitely in danger. I went back to the weir the other day and the river is ridiculously fast.“Drunken fun is drunken fun but when you start putting your life at risk it stops being fun and becomes ridiculous,” he added.The Oxford Mail attacked the three students, running the headline “You Idiots” on its front page. Wellington describes this treatment as deserved, saying, “I feel quite ashamed. I’m frustrated that I did it but you can’t blame the papers.“I’m disappointed that I wasted a substantial amount of the emergency services’ time,” he added.
He confirmed that the three students will be doing community service to make up for the trouble caused. “I am going to do quite a lot of community service: some in College, some in town.We’re thinking of volunteering with St John’s Ambulance or the Fire Service. It’s the right thing for me to give back something to the community.”He claimed he wanted to speak publicly about the incident because it had made him realise the dangers of binge drinking.He concluded, “This has definitely changed the way I feel about alcohol – if I hadn’t been completely off my face I wouldn’t have done it. I take complete responsibility but I think alcohol is more dangerous than people give it credit for.”

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

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

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

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

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