News YUSU Elections 2018

Bushby penalised after election rules broken

Presidential candidate Charles Bushby and his campaigners will be unable to campaign between 12pm and 5pm on Friday after a mass message endorsing the candidate was sent this morning. (Thumbnail credit Justyn Hardcastle)

Archive This article is from our archive and might not display correctly. Download PDF
Presidential candidate Charles Bushby and his campaigners will be unable to campaign between 12pm and 5pm on Friday after a mass message endorsing the candidate was sent this morning.

Just after midnight this morning members of the Facebook group "York students against the disarmament protests taking place on campus" received an email which included a quote from Bushby and a link to his own group.

The message started saying that "one particular candidate has caught our attention." It went on to finish with "I'm not suggesting every member of this group who stands up for what they believe in votes for this guy" but "if there's something to swing your vote between two hard-to-decide-between candidates, then this should be paid attention to."

Although this message was not sent by Bushby or one of his campaigners he is still held responsible, according to election rules.

Returning officer Tom Scott stated that as more than two hundred people received the message and email it broke the unions rules against mass emailing. The punishment given is intended to redress the advantage the candidate has gained, and is not intended to be punitive.

Speaking about the punishment Bushby stated that he was "disappointed that once again this news has been brought to my attention." He commented that a lack of clear rules and regulations meant that "a lot of rule breaking is happening out on the campaign trail. It's sad that once again this has caused me to be punished." Finally he wishes that "next year the process is easier to follow for candidates."

You Might Also Like...

45 Comments

Anon Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

This is just further evidence supporting the view some people in YUSU have it in for Bushby's campaign. His posters took longer than other candidates' to materialise, he was accused of 'social bribery', which is stupid when the president used this exact campaign tactic but with cutlasses, and is now being penalised because some people in charge of a student campaign realise that he is the candidate who supports the aims of the campaign more than any of the other candidates.

This is not taking into account the possibility that YUSU seems to be regulating some candidates' budgets a lot closer than others...

Reply

Michael Drury Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Tom Scott has had it in for Bushby from the start, however he can have no complaints over this punishment. I'm sure Bushby will bounce back, he's got some good policies and has been the standout candidate in these early days.

Reply

Anon Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

His posters have also been seen on notice boards and the doors of computer rooms. Hmmm.

Rules are rules, whether we agree with them or not.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Oh for goodness sake, election rules have always been that chain e-mails are not allowed and it has been made VERY clear to people that chain facebook messages are under the same bracket. It has also been clear that people outside of the campaigning team can still get you disqualified or damaged.

It's unfortunate that people have been damaged by people outside of their campaign teams, as happened LAST YEAR to a few candidates, I might add, but tough luck. It's in the rules and every candidate and campaigner knows this.


And on that silly cutlass point. A) he was a joke candidate. B) He didn't promise FREE anything: http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v203/116/13/222302431/n222302431_2789577_7092.jpg He just supported cutlasses for all.


I'm still, however, waiting for the discount rum, plundering Lancaster (though I suspect Roses will do), hammocks in Senate meetings - though Senate is now disbanded anyway and pharmacy on campus.

>.>

Reply

Dan Taylor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Jason, I agree with you that it's 'one of those things' though what concerns me is the ease at which it can be done. I could send an email to a sporting list posing as one of Tim, Tom or Grant's campaigners and say "Vote for me" etc. with the link to his group on the page. I think it's concerning for all candidates how easily this can happen, especially when it was not Charles who initiated the email or had any say in its distribution. It is one of many ridiculous 'rules' that have made this election so anal, and that's something agreed on by almost all candidates and indeed other YUSU Sabs.

I think there is also an element of Tom not 'liking' Charles, particularly after hustings and the accusation of 'social-bribery', though I don't think that's the reasoning behind this punishment. I think it's fair, if extremely unfortunate. YUSU printed his posters in the wrong colours (white instead of pink) after taking over 24 hours to process them in the first-place. He has also clamped down on t-shirts, when we all saw other candidates' supporters numbering 25+ in Ziggys last night with them on, not that I blame them though! It's all part of the election fun and the anal attitude of the 'returning officer' ruins that very important part of YUSU elections.

Jason, it doesn't matter whether Scott was a 'joke' candidate or not. This is a ridiculous justification for making empty promises. What's the difference between offering hammocks in senate meetings and a proportion of a salary to the most needy on campus? I'd say the latter was the more sensible and realistic!

In short, I just think it's a shame that this election has had so much of the fun taken out of it. Media outlets are afraid of bribery left, right and centre, candidates "can't poster here and can poster there", t-shirts with names on are somehow different from cardboard that probably costs more to produce with names on and the same crappy rules apply to candidate's advertising that is far outside their control. I think the lesson of all of this needs to be learnt from next year.

Perhaps this is the reason so few people stand and people feel so disenfranchised.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I agree on most of those points. It is indeed fair and unfortunate and I was thinking today how easy it would be to post to all members of my facebook group "Vote Tom Langrish" or the like and get him ruled out of campaigning for a day... It is an extremely irritating rule but it is a rule that makes sense to stop candidates from getting friends to email people etc.

Some of the postering rules make sense - a lot of outdoor flyering or postering can kill some of York wildlife as well as causing a massive amount of problems - but indoor walls? Week 8 has problems with computer rooms and toilets for some reason?

Not sure that t-shirts are even close to the cost of FREE cardboard from a shop but still, the point is true that a few of the rules are a bit shaky. There isn't that much that can be done, however... and making elections more fun is an interesting point when I believe you are against joke candidates!

Reply

Dan Taylor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

T-shirts are free if you already own them...

Anon. Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

No, they are not.

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

That's like saying that a zeppelin is free if you already own them. It's not a fair point since you could just print hundreds of "Taylor for President" t-shirts in September and use them in the election. It's irrelevant and the rule is perfectly fair in every single way.

George Papadofragakis Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

"after taking over 24 hours to process them in the first-place."

This happened to most candidates.

Reply

Dan Taylor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Whe I say over 24, I mean close to 48. And yours were in the correct colour, I take it?

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Our posters were ready at the same time as Charles' - they were given to us both at the same time after we had both sat in the YUSU office for a little while. I do agree that it's a little harsh and that extra staff/printers should have been used... but we should have sent the posters to be printed on Saturday since we knew they'd be queued so it's our own fault!

Reply

Alcuin Student Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I'm pretty sure Bushby doesn't need Tom Scott's help to lose this election after watching his speech on YSTV

Reply

Anon Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I don't know to what extent that analysis of Bushby's campaign is a valid/universal one. His policies are what count, and they're actually pretty successfull among students, even if you might not share it.

Reply

George Papadofragakis Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

We were all warned by Your:Print that this would inevitably happen to some candidates. Just take a moment to consider how many posters had to be printed on Tuesday and Wednesday and you will realise that this was simply unavoidable.

Luckily, I got my posters in 24 hours and they were in the correct colour, but the first batch was actually 25% more expensive than it should have been. When you are campaigning on a 30 pound budget, this effectively means that you're about a hundred posters short than everyone else.

Nevertheless, I have not complained about it and I do understand that mistakes happen. That's life. There is no mysterious and powerful conspirator seeking to thwart any of us. It'd be interesting to have people actually caring so much about student politics, but in reality that's just not the case.

Besides, I do believe that this should not be about flashy posters and fancy mottos but rather about proposals and ideas. I am sure that a piece of paper can convey the same message, no matter if it is white or pink.

Finally, the term 'social-bribery' was used by Tom Scott when I first made my proposal. It was not in any way an attack against Charles - at the time Charles had not even submitted his own proposal. In fact, Scott's comment was not an attack against anyone, but rather a very reasonable explanation as to why this sort of thing should not be allowed.

Reply

Matt Grum Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I'm sorry 'Anon' (if that's even your real name) but you can't seriously claim that people who voted for Tom Scott actually expected to be given a free cutlass, which would be worth over PS100. It is completely different to saying vote for me and my parents will provide the union with PS15,000 - which most people can be expected to be taken seriously.

Reply

Dan Taylor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Matt, at what point did Charles say that his 'parents' would be providng the Union with

Reply

Matt Grum Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Dan, the way I interpreted what Charles has said is as follows: He gets money to live on from his parents so he can afford to give his wages back to the union. Effectively if not semantically the union is receiving money from them.

fan, you've made a few sweeping assumptions about me - I get all my fees paid, and money to live on (which exceeds the president's salary) so it's nothing to do with envy or class warfare! I just think the election should be about what the candidates themselves have not what their parents have.

If elected Charles has the right to do what he wants with his salary but it is unfair on the other candidates to make this part of his election promise (a position shared by the returning officer amongst others).

Reply

Ben McCluskey Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Everyone seen Tom Langrish's Hustings Speech? "...My PS15,000 salary, which I will take, because I have to."

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I think that the argument "I can fix the society budget hole by not paying the sabbatical officers" isn't one that makes sense; it can degrade the work that others put into it. I think that people not receiving parental support who donate some of their wage are acting nobally but those who are suggesting that if they win their parents will essentially free up PS15,000 of funds for YUSU are abusing their heritage.

I didn't really think much of it at first but now it seems wholeheartedly an abuse of circumstance and social bribery. Sorry if it seems like a personal attack and if Charles is elected I think it's completely up to him as to what he does with his money and it should be up to his parents as to what they do with theirs.

Reply

I love my salary Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Ah, this argument has come up again.

The key point here is: whoever wins a sabbatical position will be earning a SALARY. They will not be studying for a degree.

Therefore, why do they need to continue taking parents' money? Surely the point of working to earn a salary is that you use that money to gain full independence from your parents?

Has everyone missed this point? It's got nothing to do with how people get by regarding money during the time they study.

It's not class warfare or any kind of envy - it's just good common sense: if you're working to earn a salary, stop taking money from parents!

And yes, I think it can also be interpreted (in this hypothetical situation of Charles') that the parents will be donating PS15,000 to the Union - because it's a salary, not tuition fees nor student loans.

Reply

Grant Bradley Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

I'm not going to comment at this point whether or not Bushby should take the money IF he is elected... but the union would have to consider the "donation" like any other. As if it were a donation from an external individual or organisation.

Reply

I love my salary Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

YUSU gives you a ball, you put it on the table.
Your parents give you a ball, you also put it on the table.

Oh no! You have too many balls! So you give one back to YUSU.

What's to stop that ball being the same one your parents gave you?

Reply

Stephen Fox Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Is no-one else thinking that the idea of giving PS15k this year if he won to be stupidly short-sighted? What the hell does he think would happen next year? That the same PS15k societies have gotten used to eating into would be found again?
I don't think so somehow...

Reply

David Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Actually the point is the following, and had you listened to his speech, you may have understood. The 15k would be a short term measure to get the society's budget up to par with what it needs to minimally function. The long term measure Bushby proposed was lobbying the university to increase its overall YUSU budget, which would then increase the amount allocated to clubs and societies as well.

Reply

A. Catsambas Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

"I love my salary", you are being an idiot.
Some people do not work because they need the money, but because they want to produce something, to benefit others around them. If you only work for the salary, you are going to be unhappy in your work.
A.

Reply

Dan Taylor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Stephen,

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

"Anyone who is willing to donate PS15,000 suggests a genuine care"?

Not true. Whilst many people who do it are doing it because they honestly care for societies, etc, there are definitely people on this planet that, with parents to whom 15K is virtually negligable, will be more than happy to use it as a 'bribe'. I'm not saying Charles is that, by any means, but I'm saying that it's silly to suggest that nobody will view it that way, especially within the rules.

Reply

Dirk Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Complete bullshit. Whichever chipmonk came up with this has not yet evolved opposing digits.

Reply

Stig Derwent Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Di'r'k, what exactly does your comment mean? I'm every so slightly confused at what you're directing your agtation at.

Reply

Matt Grum Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

To come back to the idea that Dan keeps reiterating (before this thread deteriorates into a torrent of abuse, or at least randomness), someone who donates money to YUSU shouldn't feel the need to shout about it, after all they did it because they "genuinely care" for the students, not for the publicity!

I feel broadcasting this proposed donation, generous though it may be, borders on buying influence, which I feel is unfair to the other candidates.

Reply

Annon Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Lewis Bretts -- "Come visit me, I shall make you a Sandwich". When is he going to get the time to make these sandwiches if elected to office? Who is going to fund his culinary adventures? If he wants to make Sandwich, Subway is recruiting!!

Reply

Lewis Bretts Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Hey Anon!

Loaf of Bread: 80p,

Jar of Jam: PS1,

Making YUSU better by getting one more person to come and tell an officer what they think: Priceless.

Reply

Will Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

that made me giggle.

Won my vote.

Reply

dear lord Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

It's good to see how much people value their votes..

Anon Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Is this Bushby character the guy who announced that one of his policies or attractive points was that he was conscious? You wouldn't believe how relieved I was to hear that given the alternative.

Reply

Erik O'Connor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Yes, I think Charles Bushby did repeatedly announce that he is 'conscious'. I suppose the principle of charity applies.

Reply

Dan Taylor Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Can you not be 'concious' of the views of others? It isn't just a state of being...

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

(For the love of God Dan, invest in a spell-check. Every other post from you, you drop another clanger like this. Firefox and Safari have spell-checkers built in. I just hope you use one on your essays.)

To settle the argument, I believe the meaning that Bushby intends is:
"11. Having a conscience; conscientious. rare."
~ OED
Whilst it is a "rare" meaning, it is still used on an everyday basis by some. For example, in the phrase "conscious hip-hop".

tutty fruity Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Lewis, I will take some fruit in mine, from the market stall, on brown bread, slightly toasted. Is this a 24/7 service then with delivery.

Reply

Stacey L. Hockin Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

As a member of the 'against the disarm protests' group who received the email, the message was relevant to members of the group. It's a totally different matter than emailing 200 hundred random people who hadn't expressed any interest in the subject.

I mean, for goodness sake. Jason, you occasionally do advertising speeches about Phys-Soc events at the end of our (Physics) lectures. That's much more annoying than a RELEVANT email sent to a group, linking the complaint of 'don't those protesters care about the University itself?' to a candidate who does seem to get the argument. I'm sure if the person who sent the email noted another candidate 'getting it', their name and argument would have been included as well.

Reply

Jason Rose Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Let's just check...

a) emailing the members of an unethical-investment group with "vote Bushby" on it (because he's the least ethical candidate? Not sure I get that relevance)

b) talking to Physics students about the Physics Department Christmas Ball.


You've wasted a minute of my time with an irrelevant argument, Stacey. The reason I did a shout out was because the administrator of our department asked me to. The reason that an irrelevant group was e-mailed to vote Charles was because someone thought it would give him an advantage. And that's strictly prohibited.

Reply

Mark Machado Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Jason, have you stopped to think that every comment you have ever uttered is irrelevant?

You are really pissing me off with your smimey, low digs at people who express an interest in issues and you spout your silly little mouth off with utter rubbish.

Jason Rose, pipe down. I can honestly see your candidacy being a waste of time at this rate.

R
O
N

Matt Grum Posted on Wednesday 21 Aug 2019

Stacey:

Just a quick clarification, mass emailing is against the rules not because it is annoying, but because it is unfair to other candidates and open to abuse by people with a large access to student email addresses (for example, a hypothetical YUSU president standing for re-election has access to the email address of every student, something other candidates lack).

Reply

Leave a comment

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