Animal rights group Speak has threatened to take legal action against Thames Valley Police after a judge ruled last week that they had been unlawfully prevented from demonstrating by officers.

Mel Broughton, co-founder of Speak, attacked police for keeping officers who had been criticised during the trial on duty, and accused the University of attempting to silence anyone who who spoke out against animal testing.

Broughton complained that police officers, who had been condemned by the judge for acting in an unprofessional manner last year towards Speak, had been present at a demonstration last Saturday.

He explained that he had no confidence in the Independent Police Complains Commission (IPCC) and did not believe that the police would take action against their own officers. "I don’t think they’re [Thames Valley Police] going to do anything. We’re going to take our own action through the courts. I don’t think we’ll get anywhere through the IPCC, they’re clearly not interested."

Broughton also claims that the University is attempting to use the courts to limit Speak protests after a 2006 injunction to prevent Speak protesters using megaphones at demonstrations.

The Speak website stated, "It was noted that at least one of the police officers, whose evidence was described as ‘inconceivable’ and who was considered by the judge to be an ‘unreliable witness,’ was on duty, showing that TVP obviously want to continue policing these demonstrations in the way they have always done, with officers who want to wage a dirty war against protesters and who are prepared to lie about it in court. So much for balanced policing."

A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police confirmed that officers who had been involved in the trial were still on duty and that an internal review of the judgment was taking place.

Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Dr Richard Turnbull, has reacted against recent accusations of reactionary evangelicalism at his College in an article published in the Guardian.

"I know of no homophobia or misogyny at Wycliffe," he wrote.

Turnbull also argued that his assertion that 95 per cent of Britons are going to Hell had been taken out of context.

Want to do it like they do on the Discovery Channel? Rebecca Fry on the surprising similarities between human and animal behaviour. 

My very first lessons in love came courtesy of eighties rock star Pat Benatar. Educated at an all-girls school from the age of four, I grew up barely aware that there were two genders. Opportunities for experience-based learning were seriously limited. Still, listening to the car radio on my way home from school, one thing was clear: love is a battlefield.

Later on I became a teenager, met boys at Bacardi breezer infused house parties and probably even held their hands. Once or twice. I was growing up, trying new things, experimenting with my sexuality. Or was I? I began to realise that I was heavily influenced by my surroundings. Why was I so sure that sexual relationships involved the opposite sex? What was wrong with experimenting with other girls? Or even with myself? Our society teaches us that some sexual practices are natural, whilst others are considered perverse or even perverted. It was time to look to nature itself for some answers.

Brought up in relatively liberal, post-feminist Britain, which sees women succeeding in almost every walk of life, I still can’t even imagine making the first move. "Don’t act too interested, don’t text him until he texts you, and definitely don’t sleep with him on the first date," is typical of the relationship advice that most girls receive from male and female friends alike. Human dating etiquette dictates that female promiscuity is unnatural while men are genetically programmed to thrive on the so-called thrill of the chase.

In the animal world things are very different. Recent genetic research has revealed that females who mate with several different partners produce healthier offspring, giving them an evolutionary impetus to play the field. Female chimpanzees take this to the extreme, with some on record as having copulated with eight different partners in 15 minutes. Others have racked up an impressive total of 84 sexual assignations in just eight days. Lionesses are also voracious lovers, demanding sex at least once every half hour during their five-day heat. But the sauciest species has to be the female dunnock. These otherwise rather uninspiring birds are known to sneak away from their partners for a quickie in the undergrowth with different, genetically superior specimens. The minxes.

Yet in spite of widespread evidence of animal promiscuity, we humans still subscribe to the view that monogamy isn’t just natural, it’s everything we’ve always wanted. Right? Weaned on a diet of Disney classics, relationships always seemed simple to me. All you had to do was grow up, marry the local prince and live happily ever after. Wrong. With divorce rates at an all time high, forever seems to have become a relative concept. And it’s no different in Oxford. Though the majority of my close friends are in long-term relationships, I’d be hard pushed to name one that hasn’t "slipped up" one drunken night at the Bridge. But though fairy-tale romance eludes most of us, it hasn’t stopped me subscribing to the improbable idea that my soul mate is out there somewhere.

A quick glance around a card shop on Valentine’s Day might easily give the impression that it’s the same for animals. Cuddling bears and cooing love birds abound. But while the love bird itself really is monogamous, it’s one of the very few species that is. Genetic testing tells us that most birds live in pairs but are unfaithful to their partners, flying off to copulate with other birds at the earliest opportunity. Birds aren’t alone in this: studies show that less than 3% of mammals practice true monogamy, probably because it has very few evolutionary benefits.

Excluding black vultures, termites and prairie voles, it’s fair to say that most species sleep around. But it’s not just for fun. New research conducted by the University of British Columbia in Vancouver concludes that monogamy is in fact a risk factor for extinction. Apparently species that live in pairs or small harems are more likely to die out than those that live in large harems. In the Ghanaian nature reserves, studied colobus monkey species, which have few mates, died out an average of 18 years after the reserves were established. Green monkeys and baboons, which tend to live in large harems, are both thriving in the reserves. Similarly, monogamous duiker antelopes were eradicated after just 10 years in reserves where the more promiscuous buffalo continues to prosper. In the natural world, monogamy isn’t just difficult; it’s bad for your health.

While monogamy is rare, more contentious sexual practices such as homosexuality, masturbation, and even paedophilia are common to animal interactions. Once again, the animal world turns human stereotypes upside down. Though we’ve come a long, long way since Victorian times, the fact remains that most forms of sexual expression that don’t fit into the boy-meets-girl box are still regarded with some suspicion. In spite of the efforts of Oxford’s LGBT Soc, not one of my gay friends feels comfortable enough to kiss their partner in public. And though Friday night TV shows like Sex and the City may give the impression that we’re all happy to discuss vibrators, anal sex and X-rated fantasies over brunch, the reality is very different. Most of us tend to giggle and look the other way, retreating behind our menus before the discussion even gets off the ground. It’s a far cry from the criminal charges faced by practising homosexuals as recently as 1967, or the mandatory hospitalisation of those suffering from the "social plague" of masturbation in the 1700s. Still, with influential leaders like Archbishop of York John Sentamu supporting the 1998 Lambeth Resolution which rejects homosexuality as "incompatible with scripture", sexual freedom remains an aspiration rather than an actuality.

Animals seem much more comfortable with sexual experimentation. Dolphins in particular have discovered the secrets (and the pleasures) of free love. The mammals have been recorded trying to mate with seals, sharks, turtles, eels and even humans. They also engage in homosexual activity, rather amusingly involving blow hole penetration, and, if all else fails, will masturbate. Masturbation is in fact very common in the natural world. As Peter Boeckman of the Norwegian Natural History Museum points out, "masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we’re talking about both males and females."

Oxford scientists in Morocco have uncovered the earliest examples of human jewellery ever found.

The 82,000 year-old artefacts were found by a team in Taforalt, Northern Morocco, under the direction of Professor Nick Barton of Oxford’s Archaeological Institute.

In 1379 New College built a cesspit of such epic proportions that it took 300 years worth of students’ waste to fill it. Yet since then the history of Oxford’s sewage has been less… well, just less. Despite the eminent men and women who have frequented Oxford’s facilities over the years, the toilet has not even a footnote in the twisted and tangled history of the town.

Oxford’s toilets have served as humble thrones, not only for the cream of British academia, but also for royalty. Yet many a blue plaque adorns the places where Charles I must have relieved himself or where Queen Victoria was probably unamused. Indeed, the toilet which was most recently marked out for royal buttocks, a nice little cubicle done up by Univ in 2004 in preparation for a visit from the Queen and labeled the ‘Queen’s toilet’ (apparently we don’t go in for subtlety much round here), is a rather unassuming specimen. It now serves as the vomiting hole for victims of that ever salubrious game, Edward Ciderhands. It seems that, as the most accessible from the quad, it is also the one easiest to stumble into. Certainly a proud legacy.

Perhaps it is unsurprising that Oxford’s toilets are so unsung. What have they really got to recommend them? They’re not old and charming like the buildings, since, let’s be honest, wood panelled plumbing to go along with your wood panelled room would seriously damage its retail value. So what we are stuck with is the bog standard. No-one has to muck out 300 years’ worth of waste anymore, but no-one’s writing home about it either. Has the flush stopped our toilets from leaving their mark in the history books? Or maybe it’s just that there’s no academic eccentric enough to dedicate their life to researching latrines when, let’s face it, bar the odd over-proportioned one, they’re all pretty much the same.

But hang on a moment. Why on earth should toilets have any recognition? They’re not exactly novel, they serve a universal and timeless purpose. In fact, they’re not all that interesting; they have a prescribed function and appearance and aside from the odd death from dysentery, illicit and tawdry meeting, or accidental drug overdose, what of interest could happen behind these closed doors?

But let’s not digress. This is about toilets, not sex and drugs. I’ve even managed too avoid shit jokes, so no lowering the tone now. Perhaps the odd scandal does occur in Oxford’s toilets; certainly gossip is recorded there, thanks to the all knowing bog sheet. Even this, however, is a dying trend as colleges crack down on these toilet tabloids, labelling them as anti-semitic bullying forums. No great loss for literature; indeed the reading material in Oxford’s toilets leaves a lot to be desired, however intellectual those who graffiti the walls of the English faculty loos think they are.

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) is launching an online exhibition to mark the 40th anniversary of the Beatles’ Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album.

The exhibition features the lives of over 40 people who appear on the album cover. The iconic cover includes famous individuals such as Karl Marx, Marilyn Monroe and Lewis Carroll.

Run, jump, praise the Lord. Hallelujah! 

Over the years, Univ has come to boast the highest pedigree of porters, many of whom have earned themselves as much acclaim as the College’s impressive alumni. There’s Fred, whose retrospective account of his time as head porter, Fred of Oxford, is nestled among the dusty tomes of Univ library. Then there’s the legendary Douglas, who enjoyed such a close rapport with the students that he would offer them personal advice and could predict their future careers. With this in mind, I have high hopes of the current porter being a font of knowledge regarding all manner of student deeds and misdeeds. Yet, sadly for me, the lowly gossip-gleaner, his professionalism and loyalty prevent him from revealing any of the student scandals to which he’s been privy.

One story he does tell me suggests that the porters have quite a lot of fun at our expense. A few years ago, there was a porter-led campaign to "crack down on running in the quads". All those students guilty of anything beyond a brisk walk were fined two pounds. The head porter at the time calculated how many minutes it took to walk from the lodge to different buildings in the College. When a student, locked out of his room, came to the lodge to retrieve his spare key, the porter would insist that it be returned in what he knew to be half the time required. He would then amuse himself in watching that hapless student sprint back to the lodge at full speed, only to be greeted by a two-pound fine. Lest we doubt the altruistic motives of this porter, he assures me that the money was put straight in the charity box.

The Story Museum in Oxford will launch ‘Alice’s Day’ on July 7 to celebrate Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, a work of children’s literature written by Christ Church tutor Charles Dodgson under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll in 1862.

A Nobel Peace Prize Winner, former world leader, renowned advocate for peace and founder of an institution renowned for its election monitoring is receiving an honorary degree from Mansfield this week. And students are up in arms.

Jimmy Carter’s greatest accomplishment was his role in the the Camp David Accords, which secured a strong and lasting peace between Israel and Egypt, and he has continued peace work since leaving office.

Yet for the students protesting this is moot. And why? Because of ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’, which Carter wrote after monitoring the 2006 Palestinian elections in which stringent Israeli regulation meant that only 2% of the registered voters in East Jerusalem managed to vote.

For the title, he is being accused of anti-Semitism. It is true that some criticisms have been levelled on the basis of the contents of the book. But they constitute a minority. After all, the book had not even been published yet when Nancy Pelosi, the US Speaker of the House, announced that Carter did not speak for Democrats.

So is Carter an anti-Semite? His central criticism is that Israel denies central human rights to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and his final conclusion is not that the Israeli state should not exist, nor be censured, nor relinquish its land, but that peace will come “only when the Israeli government is willing to…honor its own previous commitments.”

If criticising the Israeli government is anti-Semitism, then Carter finds himself in strange company. In 2002 it was said that Israel “enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties…[and] developed two judicial systems…in effect, [Israel] established an apartheid regime.” And who levelled this criticism, so similar to Carter’s ‘anti-Semitism’? None other that Michael Ben Yeir, the Israeli attorney general from 1993 to 1996.

In fact, earlier than that, a figure as revered as Nelson Mandela told the Palestinian Assembly in 1999, “The histories of our two peoples correspond in such painful and poignant ways that I intensely feel myself at home amongst my compatriots.” Long before President Carter included it in the title of his book, the language of apartheid was associated with Palestine.

Nor has the book been universally reviled as anti-Semitic. While 15 members of The Carter Center Advisory Board resigned, another two hundred stayed on. At the historically Jewish Brandies University, President Carter received two standing ovations when he spoke in January, and almost half the sixty peaceful protesters outside the hall held signs reading slogans such as, “Closing our eyes to injustice is not a Jewish value.”

Carter defends his title by pointing out that it has produced exactly the desired effect—provoking new debate on a subject which he feels has fallen dormant, especially in the United States. With a debate this balanced, with as many defenders of Carter as attackers, with a history behind the language Carter used, and with Carter’s own history of peacemaking, the question must arise: why on earth is the Mansfield JCR creating a petition to stop Carter’s honorary degree?

While we think he may have been judged too quickly, it hardly matters whether Carter is right or wrong. To say that a college should not give an honorary degree to Carter because it ‘surely sends out signals that they endorse his recent work’ practically cancels the ability of colleges to award honorary degrees to figures more controversial than the Queen.

STUDENTS have protested against a decision by Mansfield College to award an honorary fellowship to former US President Jimmy Carter this week, alleging that he holds anti-Semitic views.

Julian Mansfield, a second-year PPE student, has contacted JCR members urging them to sign a petition demanding that the College does not award Carter a fellowship, arguing it would imply support for the views expressed in his book ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’.

"Awarding President Carter an honorary fellowship is deeply misguided," he said. "So soon after the publication of such a book, the College’s action surely sends out signals that they endorse his recent work. The University and Mansfield College should be politically neutral and should not by their own expressed goals be seen to be endorsing particular political views, especially when they are so extreme."

Mansfield’s Principal, Dr Diana Walford, has rejected any possibility of reversing the College’s decision to award the fellowship to Carter. "No action is planned concerning the petition. Criticism of Israeli Government policies does not equate to anti-Semitism, as will be evident to anyone who reads the book," she said.

She added that Carter had worked for peace for most of his life. "This honour is in recognition of a lifetime of service. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts," she said.

The book caused a public outcry following its publication in November 2006, owing to an alleged endorsement of anti-Semitic views. Fifteen members of the Carter Centre advisory board resigned, accusing Carter of "condoning violence against Israelis unless they do certain things".

One in nine members of the JCR have signed Mansfield’s petition and students have voiced concern over the College’s decision.

Carter has been invited to Oxford to receive an Honorary Doctorate in Civil Law by the University, as well as being elected to an Honorary Fellowship of Mansfield College.

Mansfield student Daniel Brodie criticised the College’s decision and warned against repercussions for the University’s reputation if they award the fellowship. "I personally was shocked when I heard that he was going to become a fellow because of his clearly anti-Semitic rhetoric. I think that there is something wrong in awarding a man a fellowship who has been denounced very strongly by the Anti-Defamation League," he said.

In his book, Carter claims that Israeli politics are to blame for continuing unrest in the Middle East, saying, "Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land".

Carter responded in an opinion-editorial published in the Los Angeles Times last December, titled ‘Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine.’ He rejected accusations that in his book he condoned violence against Jews or any other innocent peoples. "Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides," he said.

He added that he felt accusations of anti-Semitism came from biased and under-informed sources and that he was troubled by such claims.