News YUSU Elections 2018

Presidential candidate breaches election rules minutes before hustings

Presidential candidate Grant Bradley has breached election rules, discovered only minutes before he is due to speak at hustings.

Archive This article is from our archive and might not display correctly. Download PDF
Presidential candidate Grant Bradley has breached election rules, discovered only minutes before he is due to speak at hustings.

Nouse can confirm that one of Grant's posters has been discovered on the inside of a toilet door in Langwith. Candidates are banned from campaigning in toilets until the start of next week, and serious penalties are expected as a breach of this rule. It is not clear whether Grant was responsible for the postering, but rules stipulate that any postering, regardless of whether the candidate was responsible or not, is a breech of the rules for which the candidate will be penalised.

Last year saw candidates Laura Payne and Nadeem Kunwar penalised for similar offences, both losing a day of campaigning as a result.

Returning Officer Tom Scott refuses to comment until an official complaint is made and the situation has been reviewed.

Update: Tom Scott has issued a statement stating that he will not be immediately sanctioning Bradley or other candidates for relatively minor postering breaches, but will record the breaches.

You Might Also Like...

58 Comments

News Editor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Nouse can confirm that posters have also been seen in the toilets in Derwent

Reply

Anon Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Is there a procedure in case an opponent places the posters there out of malice?

Reply

Lewis Bretts Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Essentially the answer is no, it's something I raised with Tom Scott before the elections, candidates are liable for the actions of anyone else at the university regardless of whether they're 'campaigners' or not. The onus would be on Grant to prove it was one of his opponents. It's a difficult question, but I'm not entirely sure the current system isn't a bit flawed.

Reply

Poster Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

There is also a poster on the noticeboard of the Derwent Computer room. I have made a verbal complaint to the returning officer.

Reply

Poster Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I think that if it was discovered that someone was doing that - deliberately, maliciously putting up an opponent's posters where they are not allowed, they would probably be disqualified.

Reply

Alexios Mantzarlis Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

"seriously breached" election rules for putting a poster in toilet - the logic being that if I see X's poster and no one else's while I'm taking a leak I will most definitely vote for X?

every year these rules get a little bit more ridiculous - whoever came up with them should take all of this a little less seriously.

Reply

sb Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

ITS A TOLIET. GET A GRIP.

Reply

Dan Taylor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I second Alexios. The President has been frankly awful with rules and pettyness this election.

Expenses issues have been grey, our posters were printed on the wrong coloured paper by YUSU and pedanticism has taken over. Perhaps it's little things like this that put people off running, Tom Scott? Just a thought.

As a campaigner for Charles, I hope Grant doesn't get disqualified for this. Really, Tom. Have a long, hard, considered look before taking action that could blow the campaign out of hand.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Oh get a grip, Taylor. Tom Scott didn't decide on that policy, the university did.

Reply

Anon Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

You may be right, but Dan is not only referring to this rule exclusively. There are other, more ridiculous rules. One of them stops people from using their access to accomodation block keycards: as if that is going to help. There are jcrc presidents among the campaigners who simply go around themselves, and college tutors, who have access to every kitchen anyway. 'Levelling the playing field' in this case would be giving everyone limited access to keycards...

Dan Carr Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Anon,

you have totally misunderstood the point here. The reason that rule was used is to prevent JCRC Chairs and others who have privileged access from using this to enter kitchens and poster. ALL candidates have to be invited in.

The reason everyone couldn't be given keycards was not that Tom Scott banned this, but rather than the University decided it was not to be allowed.

Let's stop this petty, unfair criticism, especially those who clearly have no idea what's going on.

Grant Bradley Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Hello,

Whilst I can't state that I know all the locations of where my posters are placed now I can state with some certainty that a percentage of my down have either been ripped down or moved.

I'll hold my hands up and state that late last evening Tom Scott instructed me about that postering on the outside of buildings is not allowed and today I was instructed that placing posters in my the windows of my privately rented off-campus accommodation is not allowed.

If I lose a day of campaigning through incorrect positioning of posters (which have now been removed) I doubt it will directly impact the influence I'd have on the voters either way seeing as how all of my campaigning material is printed on A4 or A5 and is somewhat dwarfed by my competitors posters.

I stilll believe that my website is the best promotional asset I have, the posters only sought to promote that.

I personally feel that the case needs to be thought about as a matter of perspective, is it just as unfair to plaster Vanbrugh with however many thousand posters happen to be there, if so, I'm guilty of that too...All I can say is that to anyone who was truly offended or feels I'm unfairly advertising myself is that I'm sorry, and certainly it won't happen again.

Grant Bradley

Reply

Hussan Ijaz Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

A few posters in the toilets aren't going to do anything, I think the editor of nouse has it in for Grant, and needs to jog right on, leave him alone!! you BULLY

Reply

Anonymous Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I think you mean Tom Scott has it in for Grant, not the editor of Nouse who has nothing to do with it...

Anyway. Tom's just following the rules. No-one is bullying anyone.

Reply

Chris Northwood Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Tom's not made an official statement yet, and Foy was moderating Hustings when the story broke so maybe it's neither of them!

Anonymous Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

how the hell do you know that he has nothing to do with it, I think something rather fishy is going on in this presidential campaign. I call for the immediate investigation of all candidates

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Tom Scott hasn't postered on behalf of Grant and he didn't make the rule up that you can't poster in toilets in W8. I think that's very dodgy.

Chris Martin Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

If the editor of the nouse is bullying Grant then i suggest a noose is tied around his head. This presidential campaign should be a fair and honest election.

Hussan Ijaz Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

sorry, please dont publish my recent comment, i wasn't thinking straight. I take back all my previous comments. I also think the editor of nouse is a good man and not a bully, thank you

Reply

Grant Bradley Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I don't think anyone's "got it in" for me... I think there are rules and regulations and someone's just trying to make sure they're enforced whether or not you agree with them.

Reply

Russ Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Shouldn't you concentrate on not getting 'Ronned' Jason? I don't think I have ever seen such a ridiculous number of unobtainable policies in the space of 3 minutes.

Reply

Lisa Redgrove Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I think that Grant Bradley should release a public statement if he feels he is being "bullied". I think that the issue needs to be resolved and it would not be fair if any candidate was being misrepresented.

Reply

Grant Bradley Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I never stated that I felt "bullied".... it's a comment that was stated by Hussan and picked up by everyone else, it is not my complaint.

I've stated "I think there are rules and regulations and someone's just trying to make sure they're enforced whether or not you agree with them".

Grant

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

"Shouldn't you concentrate on not getting 'Ronned' Jason? I don't think I have ever seen such a ridiculous number of unobtainable policies in the space of 3 minutes"

Then you should probably have paid more attention. What I read out was a list of CURRENT university policies that we are already, constitutionally, mandated to follow-up. I was citing it as the reason that we have provided a list of a few key policies and lots of things that we would *like* to achieve but haven't made promises. We will fight for the campaigns that you have already chosen to the best of our abilities and we will not forget policies from last year, as has happened in the past.

So often in elections the candidates feel that they need to follow through with their promises (for obvious reasons) but this is no reason to forget what has happened in the past. I was just pointing out that I'm well aware of current policy - that which we are mandated/constitutionally bound to continue - and that we will fight for those as well as our own policies.

I very much believe in passing policies at UGM. I have written several for this week and I will campaign for anything that passes. If something has more against votes than for votes, I will not campaign for it. Chris is in the same mind on these issues - we will campaign on behalf of past, present and future students and will not do anything unpopular.

Well, we'll try not. As I said before, we're not making promises because we're going to be ambitious. I hope that this will assist in avoiding getting "ronned". I would never dream of reading a list of 20+ policies in an election speech but I didn't chose those policies - you did.

Reply

A. Democrat Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Naturally being concerned about democracy, I'm a bit confused as to how postering a toilet can be seen as a huge problem during an election.

We've already seen the current president tell a candidate he cannot pledge to give money away, tell candidates not to use megaphones (despite using one himself, and cirque du kirk using one without any problems to publicise an event), tell candidates not to use chalk (except on chalkboards inside lecture rooms!), tell candidates that ANYONE advertising online (facebook comments, nouse comments etc...) constitutes a breach of rules (even if the candidate didn't sanction it) and now we have a ridiculous rule where anywhere around campus is fair game for adverts.....except the toilets!!

As has been mentioned in this paper before with regards the GSA, election rules must move with the times - with comment facilities and social networking allowing us to campaign without even realising it, purely by stating we agree with an idea on someone's wall, for example, it's high time we liberalise campaigning rules.
We can't just have the returning officer making up rules for the hell of it - what advantage does postering the bogs have over postering a laundrette?

As long as a candidate doesn't break the law or behave disrespectfully (to others or the environment - discarded posters are a form of litter) or intrusively, I see no problem with a candidate employing whichever techniques they feel could give them an edge. Politicians do it, councillors do it, pressure groups do it.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

The pledging money thing seems fair since some people can't afford to give their entire wage away. The megaphones thing was suggested by me and agreed by EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE since there's only one. People can still buy their own with their budget if they want. Chalk is constantly a problem with Facilities Management and it stops every single candidate covering every path with chalk - there are still chalk marks from last year's election around. Advertising online isn't a breach of the rules except in certain circumstances because it counts as mass-mailing which is directly forbidden in the rules.

And your final point is simply wrong. You can't poster anywhere around campus - you can ONLY post in one place: inside buildings on glass that isn't a fire exit. That's it. In week 9 the toilets are open as well but outside postering, covering fire exits, covering internal walls etc. is forbidden. That's been the *University's* rule for a long time.

Reply

Chris Northwood Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Grant Bradley has a megaphone and invites all other candidates to e-mail him and ask him to borrow it in his latest campaign video too.

Matt Grum Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

The time to complain about the rules is when they are first layed down, not part way through campaining.

Reply

Michael R.T.R. Child Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Rules is rules. It could be argued that some are too stringent, but nevertheless they are in place for the rest of these elections.

Seriousness aside...

Nouse is too loose: can't spell "losing".

News editor, web editor: pick either hand, open it with your palm facing towards you, propel said palm towards your face.

Reply

Chris Northwood Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Reply

Dirk Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Honestly this sort of nonsense is the biggest possible endorsement for Bradley. He has absolutely no union experience so hasn't been tainted by BS like this. Well nor had "uncle" Tom Scott but...

Why is the student union so full of shit? As a student I feel alienated by things like this.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Because you don't actually know what's going on, in any way.

I'm not attacking you; YUSU have failed to explain what they do to students and that needs to be addressed in the next year. The Student Union isn't remotely full of shit; look at Your:shop, the Courtyard, Nightline, JCRC welfare, campus events, RAG, Student Action, societies... but if students are looking at it like that then there is obviously a real issue with communication and publicity!

Don't forget that YUSU got you a reduced ticket price to town, longer library opening hours etc. They can really affect the world around you so don't just casually dismiss them!

Reply

Jack Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I'm with Dirk. The SU is full of shit.

These petty victories they claim to have got should have been there in the first place! A student bar? Jesus Christ! We were the only University in the country without one of those! Longer library opening hours? They're still not a patch on what Leeds have. Nightline (every uni has this), JCRC welfare (load of utter bollocks. When I was in halls they were completely useless when I needed assistance), RAG (never interacted with them, but I fail to see how charity work helps me or other students), societies (this is down to the individual group, not the SU. Sure they fund them but so does every other SU).

The point is, compare our union to any other University and you see quite quickly how utterly useless they are.

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Simply not true.

The campaign to have a 24-hour library will have come to a conclusion in the near future, JCRC welfare are generally effective and are in addition to YUSU welfare, nightline and the university welfare - which is an above-average level of welfare support, RAG and student action help people that are both students and otherwise. Money to York Spinal Injuries Association is inevitably going to help student who have these problems, York LINKS helps provide first-aid at campus events etc.

The student bar isn't the same as the majority of other universities (and not all universities have SU bars) due to the fact that we have a collegiate system and several bars. York St John have a successful SU bar because it's the only one they have, for instance.

York has an incredibly high amount of societies compared to the number of students, nationally, and also has a massive amount of support for them. Granted that Your:shop, the Courtyard etc. are similar items to other universities but if you've ever been to another SU bar you can't say that the Courtyard isn't nicer than most!

And that's without the level of support that our SU provides our sports (since universities often put in more effort than ours etc.) and other things. There are small victories all the time, like the reduced bus ticket price, that people don't notice and it's a shame that YUSU hasn't been able to market itself to the common student because it has done so much that you should know about!

Jack Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

How about no-one bothers putting posters up at all. Let's face it... no one really gives a shit who is YUSU president because they'll be as useless as the next guy.

I miss being able to see out of windows.

Reply

frustration Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Jack, stop moaning, and get involved and change it then if you think you can do better.

Reply

Jack Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I didn't say I could do better. I'm just commenting the next person will be as useless as the last.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

How can we improve, then?

I'm planning on attending Council meetings, regardless of whether I get elected, and asking (in Officer Questions - same at UGM) how far their policies have gone with specific questions. Try and keep accountability and transparency as much as possible, myself aiming specifically at the Sabbatical Officers.

What would you suggest would be good ideas for future full-time or part-time officers?

Name Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

If you feel you could do better, then you should try to get involved.

And if you're not better yourself, then perhaps you should not be passing judgment so easily.

Jack Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

@Name

So when I watch my football team perform badly I can't comment? That's utter bollocks mate. If someone is doing their JOB badly, I can make all the comments I like.

Nonny Mouse Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

So what do you think YUSU officers should be doing that they aren't, Jack?

Give some examples instead of being so negative about everything!

Reply

A. Democrat Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Ahh the usual 'why don't you get involved' question.

It takes a lot of balls to speak at a UGM. I attended one last year and felt so out of place. I'd call myself a moderate 'new labour' left winger, but I felt like if i spoke i'd be hounded as some right-wing nutter.

The extreme left have a monopoly on UGMs, save a few tories, as such, very few people actually dare to oppose a motion. Very few motions fail, yet less than 300 people usually vote.

If turnout increases, less motions will be passed. If the centre left, centre and right are to get involved ,this could spell disaster for environment and ethics motions, and silly international political motions that have nowt to do with York students.

Officers needn't be useless . Our bus services are shit, our campus accommodation is dire and contact hours are a disgrace. Lighting on the stray doesn't exist, rape alley has its name for a reason, and the SU bar still has a few flaws to iron out.

In other words, plenty to fight for. But a focus on 'personalising the president' or solving the middle east crisis really won't do much good. People wouldn't be so cynical if we felt officers worked for the good of students, not to improve their opportunities for a job in a trade union, or on the NUS council.

...Of course A. Democrat won't be running because A. Democrat has no experience and/or friends! Not a winning combination.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

"The extreme left have a monopoly on UGMs"

Extreme left? Extreme would, in the case of the current UGM, call for an abolition of tuition fees, the banning of meat in the Courtyard, refusal to advertise for Sinclair's or boycott of rent for that company, protests against the national ID card, the abolition of either Israel or Palestine...

Calling for letting agencies to conform to their own code of best practice, a vegetarian label on menus (which, I might add, is standard practice in even the worst pubs), reform of a broken tuition fee system and writing letters of condemnation to specific groups is hardly extreme - and I wouldn't even call any of those UGMs left-wing.

Indeed, the people that spoke at the UGM this time were one of the three board of studies faculty representatives, myself, Dan Renwick and Ralph (chair of Conservatives) - Dan and I, I suppose, could be called left-wing but we're hardly "extreme" in our views!

"Our bus services are shit, our campus accommodation is dire and contact hours are a disgrace. Lighting on the stray doesn't exist, rape alley has its name for a reason, and the SU bar still has a few flaws to iron out."

Sinclair's UGM, changes in assessment and feedback, Vegetarian labelling are three of the current UGMs that directly respond to the problems you have mentioned. I am also going to campaign against the Council (whether elected or not) for better lighting - not just on the stray but on the paths beyond the Sports Centre, near new Vanbrugh, the science park etc. In fact, the lighting all over is poor and don't forget damaged cycle paths *in combination with that* are dangerous. The reason there isn't much FTR action is because we negotiated a massive drop in price for student return tickets, though I believe that there is more to be gained and that we're still hard-done-by (as are non-students still, remember!) compared to many equivalent areas.


The point is that anyone can run and anyone can suggest a UGM if they don't want to write it. The fact that people feel out of place is definitely bad and needs to be fixed by the *current* Sabbs as well as next year's, so that we get more involvement and fairly represent the average student. Keep fighting for what you want though!




"If turnout increases, less motions will be passed."
Graduate in the Minster: for-1328 against-457
Better student venue: for-1386 against-51
Good rent system: for-1170 against-79
Affiliate with the NUS: for-1005 against-357
Campus bridges: for-705 against-15
No-confidence GFH: for-656 against-648
Censure of GFH: for-668 against-488
Investment of sport: for-901 against-65


Indeed the only one that I can see has failed was the anti-discrimination officer which had 129 for and 440 against... and that was seen as a right-wing motion. I would suggest that the average student is similar to the 300 voting usually, since all the statistics go that way!

If you want to prove otherwise, see the various meetings by clicking on the years on the left.... http://www.yusu.org/union/meeting/17/

Reply

A. Catsambas Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Jason, although there are exceptions, it is a fact that UGM speakers/proposers are mostly left wing (I will not say extreme left, but still).
And you have to acknowledge that UGMs do not represent the majority of students at all. Fewer than 2000 students voted for the most popular motions, out of a population of roughly 11.000.
In addition, it is very common practice for many of the people who support some motions to attack anyone who opposes them (people who did not support the disarm campaign got called misguided, dangerous, pessimists, war hungry, anti-pacifists etc). It is not hard to see why most people do not bother engaging in discussion.
Best,
A.

Reply

... Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

"people who did not support the disarm campaign got called misguided, dangerous, pessimists, war hungry, anti-pacifists etc"

..and people who supported it were called misguided, dangerous, dirty hippies who had no idea what's going on with the world. So there you have your balance, as I am sure that neither description would adequately describe those two large groups of people.

Additionally, people who support the Gaza UGM are now called supporters of Hamas, even though it has been explicitly stated that this motion does not intend to support the practices of this horrible organisation. Even worse, its most important part, the humanitarian aspect (scholarships, aid) has been quite conveniently ignored or twised by most (I say most, not all) of the opposition.

Finally, the anti-ID motion which is currently being voted on has been proposed by the Chair of the Tories and seconded by most of the Tory commitee. I can safely assume that it will still pass by a comfortable majority, despite the distinct lack of leftiness among the proposers.

"And you have to acknowledge that UGMs do not represent the majority of students at all. Fewer than 2000 students voted for the most popular motions, out of a population of roughly 11.000."

Sadly true, but that's hardly different than YUSU elections, is it? And give that we actually PAY the winners of the latter to represent us, I would be more concerned as to how we raise the profile of YUSU and UGMs rather than discredit them completely.

Let us also remember that Grace was fired because of a difference of 8 people. I find it incredibly ironic how certain people (not you A. Catsambas) are now trying to discredit UGMs that have passed with comfortable majorities..

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Of course UGMs do not represent the majority of students. The YUSU elections don't represent the majority of students.

Indeed, I suspect that if voting in YUSU elections was compulsory and we added an "I don't care" option below RON.... well, you get the picture. The fact that a UGM doesn't have 6,000 voters doesn't mean that it's necessarily unrepresentative but we do have to try and get more people voting. 2,000 people voting on a UGM is a perfectly good turnout - but we need to try for it every vote.

And I would agree that people who didn't support the disarm campaign are misguided - the UNIVERSITY supported and passed the policy so why would you disagree?! It is obviously a case of less education on the subject since the people who know all about the entire situation voted to agree with it. I'm not saying that they're generally misguided, warmongering or anything but on that particular issue they were malinformed about the ins-and-outs of that campaign.

Even still, people that oppose these motions will have general concerns and it's good to hear them. More people should speak at UGM debates against motions or in favour of them. Hopefully (since this thread's about Presidential rule-breaching) whoever becomes YUSU President will reduce apathy and double UGM turnout. All candidates have generally pledged things along those lines but it'll be interesting to see if the winner can pull through with it!

Reply

James Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I opposed the arms policy for two main reasons:
1) BAE employ a lot of York graduates and work closely with certain departments
2) My brother is in the army and it makes me feel proud my University has aided in making sure he is well equipped and well protected.

How am I misguided, Jason? Because I don't live in a fairy world where I believe weapons aren't required?

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Because BAE have sold weaponry to illegal dictatorships which have enables the massacres of hundreds of thousands of people. Because BAE have acted illegally by UK law and international law in dealing with political coups and in rather a large amount of dodgy dealings that are, and have previously been, under investigation. Because BAE supplied Saudi Arabia for torture implements and they are one of the few countries who have a history of torturing teenagers.

This is removing pension fund shares in the company, it's not affecting the employment or research levels.

It's not affecting the company's own profits but rather withdrawing charitable funds from shares in the company where they should not be positioned, as the University now believes.


My point is that you are misguided as to the reasons behind our opposition, the level of 'ethics' involved in this (i.e. this policy is against arms companies that deal with unethical governments, not arms companies in general), and our intentions.

The university, through research and employment, has helped providing defences for the troops out there. I am satisfied if the university has been improving bullet-proof vest quality, etc. I'm not satisfied if the university has been researching torture weapons for them, however. This isn't about supporting troops but rather about *not supporting illegal dictators who slaughter their own people*. Oceania, Africa, South America - BAE have sold to a variety of places worldwide and the issue is with that.

That's my point. If the issue was with the British army, I would never say "misguided". It would be a difference of opinion - one opinion being that soldiers will never improve security in an area and the other being that soldiers can improve security in an area. This isn't that issue, however, and I hope that you can forgive me for saying that you are misguided on this issue.

The resolution of this ethical investment policy will not be to remove either points 1 or 2 - we will still have graduates working for BAE and we will still be providing them with research. Neither is at stake in this policy and that's where I feel many people are misguided.

A. Catsambas Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

"... says": I completely agree with you in some of your points, I obviously think it is ridiculous that supporters of the new motion get labeled "pro-Hamas", and I thought it was unacceptable when the opposition's group on facebook deleted its wall. The fact that there is balance does not justify the people who campaign in the disarm protest, when they turned rational discussion in personal attacks. Most critics of the motion do not claim that the people who propose it are pro-Hamas. The most that can be said is that they have not provided both sides of the argument.
Also, I said that there are few exceptions in the rule that most motions are proposed by left-wing people. And I do agree that the profile of UGMs and elections should be raised.
As a side note, the fact that the aid aspect of the new motion is ignored is not out of malice. I, and others I believe, hold that the third clause of the motion is perfectly justifiable. It is the rest of the motion that we have a problem with. To clarify, by "we" I do not mean the likes of Taylor et al. I mean people who, like myself, believe it is far fetched making public statements, or lobbying the government to launch inquiries.
Best,
A.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

A perfectly acceptable and understandable point of view. If the motion fails because this view is prevalent, I'm happy. If the motion fails because of midunderstandings, propaganda by the opposing facebook group or pressure from a small group of individuals then I won't be happy. There's always a reasonable chance that the motion will pass as well. We'll just have to see! But I understand that some people don't want the university to make a statement on the issue.

I would like to add, though, that it's been done many times before on issues such as Sudan, etc.

Reply

Chris Northwood Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

If the motion succeeds because of misunderstandings, propaganda or pressure from a small group of individuals pursuing their own agenda I won't be happy.

Reply

Name Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

There is a far greater chance that it will fail for exactly the same reasons.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Whilst we're on this topic, I want to wrap up what I have to say so that I can leave this where it is and not reply again.

a) I think that the USA's billions of dollars of military aid to Israel and refusal to give military aid to Palestine (near enough every year for the last 50 years) should stop. It's making the situation worse.

b) I think that both sides of the conflict have broken international laws and should be investigated - but that the UN Secretary-General specifically spoke about Israel, only 13 died to the Palestinian 1,300, there was outcry at the use of white phosphorous which is specifically prohibited, etc... so I can understand the point of view (and I'm not saying that I take that view) that people are more concerned about the Israeli investigation. Both sides should be investigated, however.

c) The rockets from Palestine, the siege by Israel and the security wall are not good for a permanent (and peaceful) resolution to the conflict. Making a statement to call for the end of these things seems remarkably similar to what YUSU have done before on other, similar, issues and also seems likely to represent the majority.

d) The University of Gaza no longer exists because of a variety of war-related coincidences... so supporting them sounds like something that both helps education in the area and is completely within the University's remit.

e) The Hamas government was voted in free and fair elections. They may have acted illegally, against the will of the people and attacked a nation in their home country - but I don't think the UK was labeled illegitimate for the Iraq invasion despite having a majority of Brits oppose it and despite it contravening UN resolutions... The elections were fair, and Hamas should be negotiatied with, not shunned.

f) Publishing a list of products that come from occupied territories isn't a boycott.



There are plenty of reasons to oppose this motion but suggesting that we're being anti-Israeli in our actions is completely unfair. Saying that we agree with the UN that Hamas won (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006) in free and fair elections - and a 75% turnout is pretty impressive! - isn't anti-Israeli. It's necessary for peace and that's what the motion's working for.


Regardless, some people may feel that despite YUSU having made statements like this in the past; despite that this is a policy that was taken as being acceptable by Rules and Regulations Committee; despite the fact that it calls for an end to both sets of attacks - that it's not an appropriate policy.... and that's why we have UGMs!

Reply

Chris Northwood Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

There is no active policy coming anything close to this, the closest is the BNP which imo is also completely inappropriate for the Union to take a stance on. The Sudan issue is regards to lobbying the University for divestment, not condemnation.

Reply

Leave a comment

Disclaimer: this page is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.