This is an almost exact repeat of an incident almost a year ago when a PA23, ahead of and below a PA28 on final to RW 02, was told to go-around. On that occasion the two aircraft luckily missed by a few tens of yards. The UKAB have not yet published their findings but one of the pilots involved has been told that it was assessed as 'A'.
All the talk about radar, ILS, etc. is just a smokescreen. This incident happened in the visual circuit on short final and would not have been seen on radar even if it existed. The reason Oxford never got ILS is quite simple - the runway is too narrow. In order to install ILS you must have a standard width runway and the cost of widening 02/20 would be far more than a second-hand ILS. The excuse that ILS would attract too much visiting traffic was perfectly valid before most circuit work was exported to the USA, you only have to look at how often you have to extend the downwind leg for ILS traffic at Coventry or Cranfield to see the point.
The fact is that the priorities at Oxford are being set by the beancounters with no attention being paid to safety or good practice. Instructors are being bribed, blackmailed and bullied to get airborne, irrespective of weather, training value or safety. BL has been sidelined and replaced by an ILS puppet who has never before been involved in commercial flying training, the guy who is running VFR wouldn't recognise quality training if it bit him and the morale in ATC has been rock bottom for a long time.
Perhaps one of the insiders might like to suggest why the chief standards man/flight safety officer suddenly left for a job in the Belgrano (for, rumour has it, significantly less money) to be closely followed by a second standardiser?
For all their drawbacks and deficiencies, BAe must be rubbing their hands with glee. They know only too well the effect that an incident like this can have on contracts.