"We annoyed a certain section of campus. The left-wing YUSU authoritarian clique"I'm not left-wing, ask anyone. I'm not in the YUSU clique, in fact I have an unfortunate habit of losing elections and I'm not authoritarian. But I was in the room, I did think it was disgusting and I agree with the punishments they were given. Worse still, I think there might be some serious issues they've raised, which could really be discussed in a debate, but which they have now tarnished with their stupid pig-headed approach.Well done Nouse and YSTV for giving more screen time to these guys. It let's even more of campus see what first class idiots they are, and that can only be a good thing!
How could they be so stupid as to let themselves be filmed again!Out of interest, can anyone in third year (or an MA-er) confirm whether it was Pickard who infamously said to a Tory guest speaking on campus "Who did you sleep with to get this position?"Just to further trample on these people's lives, Peter Saul is 'known' to Nouse, having run for numerous positions in first year in what is still the most bizarre and erratic manner I have seen.
These two are just a poor man's Dan Taylor!
While I'm having a rant...Did anyone see Vision's comment section????Despite the entirety of campus media being united in their condemnation of these candidates, and despite the assertions that womcom IS valid, and the revelations that it DOES do valid work, Vision published a comment piece decrying the existence of YUSU lgbt.Oh dear.
@ LO'B:No he didnt say it to a tory guest speaker, it was said when he was very drunk as a fresher at the tory meet and greet. In which he rather drunkly asked the female chair woman who she had slept with to get the position of chair
As usual with Nouse this is a fairly well-balanced story.As a third year "bog standard" student, I can say that the issues behind this whole attack on the Women's committee aren't restricted to a pair of ignorant campaigners. The women in the interview claim that women still face sexism and discrimination - which is fair enough, however it is sexist not to either dissolve this committee or create a Men's committee for the exact same purpose. Sexism works both ways, and a combination of political correctness, racial and ethnic sensitivity and sensitivity to sexism has resulted, in fact, in the white british male being discriminated against for the purposes of statistics and targets. Obviously this is an issue that needs to be addressed and unfortunately without a Men's committee there is no such way for this to happen.I am pleased to see that the girls in the interview recognised that, despite their insulting male counterparts being silenced by YUSU, YUSU has gone beyond its purposes and rights to ban their campaign.
>> As usual with Nouse this is a fairly well-balanced story.What is that logo in the top right corner of the video player? Doesn't look like the Nouse logo to me!
Would have been nice to interview someone not on the editorial team of Nouse for a genuine feeling of campus opinion instead of just theirs.Otherwise a very good piece from YSTV!
This seems like positive coverage of one candidate in an election and surely isn't allowed?If it is allowed, surely it's a bad move for them to further publicise to potential future employers how massively bigoted they are about some major issues and how hated they have become on campus? Peter Saul and Mark Pickard will be faced with all future employers searching this: http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=mark+pickard and it doesn't bode well for them as final year students...
J~ Youve over sensationalising the whole thing so much that perhaps your comments belong on vision. EMPLOYERS WONT CARE! as its only studnet media, and funny enougth it isnt the be all and end all! The majority of people I have spoken to dont care and quite a few of the women I have spoken to cried with laugther on watching their YSTV. That said the Women were feminists and not of the WomCom variety.As for the above vidio very bias, there are quite a few people that found the whole thing very funny...yet oddly enougth the only people they could find were a group of 3 girls and WomCom?
It's funny how Saul and Pickard resort to using 'la langue de Nick Griffin', i.e. 'the liberal elite'.
The stupidity and poor taste of the campaign has diverted attention away from the real offensive behaviour. By banning candidates from campaigning when they haven't broken campaign-specific rules, Lewis Bretts has rigged this election. This to me is a more important debate than whether or not womens committee (which doesnt cost much to run, and doesn't really negatively impact on lives of men) is disbanded or whether mens committee (probably needed if someone can be bothered to set it up) is created. Why are individuals in positions of 'authority' able to rig elections? Just because Bretts PERSONALLY finds something offensive does not mean they don't have a right to stand for office without excessive hindrance. I wonder what the electoral commission / electoral reform society would have to say about this?
Funny how Sam Seaborn hasn't jumped to defend Bretts in this case!A.Comment edited by a moderator
Honestly, there were odder quotes that were edited out.
Because you bore me Aris. Just like you bore everyone else on Nouse.co.uk
"I wonder what the electoral commission / electoral reform society would have to say about this?".Absolutely nothing. YUSU have a constitution that all students sign up to when they choose not to "opt out of membership". He concluded (rightly, IMO) that the candidate's remarks broke the Equal Opportunities clause - and as Returning Officer, it is his constitutional duty to make such calls. Moreover, the constitution clearly states they can have a decision overturned by: a general meeting or Union Council. Not to mention the Union's complaint policy, which would put the University Registrar in the position to overturn the decision. All these were available to the candidates: they chose *not* to peruse them.A democrat: you may have a name that implies some understanding of the term, but in reality, you really don't.
Aha... of course, it has to do with me, not with the fact that you realised that the vast majority of the student population agrees with me in that Bretts has broken his promises and abused his position of power. If anything, I have always argued avoiding personal insults, unlike you. I have always focused at the matter at hand, again unlike you. Also, I have always posted under my real name. You have accused me of prejudice against Bretts in the past. That is for the other readers to judge. But you, if people knew who you are, they'd have a much better understanding of why you keep defending Bretts. Basically, you have a personal vendetta against me, and when you run out of arguments to support your position, you turn to personal insults. You can very well see that many people are against Bretts, yet you only focus on me. It is high time you grew up, and learned the principles of civilised and proper discussion. One would expect more from a graduate student than cheap personal attacks.A.
Aris - I've not replied because I can't be bothered to get into a debate with you. You're the one who has tried to turn this thread, yet again, into a conversation about Lewis. One would expect a student who's left York to stop continually posting on Nouse in an attempt to have the same argument over and over again. But I suppose, we're all going to have to live with the disappointment that he wont. Now with that in mind, I really am off to run in the Californian 47th.
Crack on you bloody heroes!
Why were the interviews with people inside the Nouse clique? Surely for a unbiased interview you could have found other people on campus to comment other than writers and editors of Nouse?
It was A. Democrat, not me, who turned the conversation to Lewis. In fact, only once did I actually start the conversation about Lewis, in all other instances I commented to an article written about him. See, this is what makes you one of the worst persons to ever argue with: you keep distorting the truth and diverging from the matter at hand.A.
This is all so awkward.
Does any one else get the impression that these two candidates are just trying to appear cool/edgy/laddish in order to be admired as some sort of bad boys of YUSU...I find that both of them have an extremely awkward and uncomfortable demeanor, I really wouldn't be surprised if this was all some attempt to be perceived as cool..I just really dislike the pair of them. I think that they're both pathetic and clearly have some sort of hang ups they need to get over. Eurgh vilee !
Steven,I just can't get enough of your deep, sensual voice...
Just because I forgot to call you the morning after, Daniella, is no reason to take it out on the poor Saul and Pickard. I for one think women have far TOO MANY 'human' rights and need to realise that their proper place is in the KITCHEN!!
"A. Catsambas says:March 11, 2010 at 2:36 pmFunny how Sam Seaborn hasn't jumped to defend Bretts in this case!A."Pretty sure you did try and start a debate about Lewis with Sam, Aris...
Right above my post:"By banning candidates from campaigning when they haven't broken campaign-specific rules, Lewis Bretts has rigged this election."I didn't start discussing Lewis, I repeat, A. Democrat did. I was just commenting on how Sam seems to have finally realised that his candidate did mess up in many ways, and has since stopped defending him. Of course, instead of doing the honest thing and admitting it, he prefers to forget the whole thing ever happened.A.
don't get your tits in a twist it was a joke xoxo
Aris,(I can't believe I'm replying to this)It has nothing to do with admitting anything, and how dare you accuse me of being dishonest. I just don't agree with your interpretation - and unlike Tobias, am sick of making the same points against, what is effectively, a brick wall. Your opinion is very heavily influenced by the election process last year, and your continual moaning and whining about it being 'unfair' (yawn).If you care so much about improving the student experience (which is the only reason for your continual commenting, other than a vendetta), for the last time, I will give you the following advice: go and comment on your own Union, and hold *your* CUSU Officers to account.
I don't see why I should not accuse you of dishonesty. An honest man would not hide behind anonymity, and they would make their ties to Bretts known. Although I care about Cambridge, I am far more familiar with the political landscape at York, and the fact that I am no longer a student there does not mean I do not care for the University anymore. I don't see how, as an alumnus, I do not have the right to take an interest in its politics. This is like claiming that if you ever leave your native country, you should stop taking an interest in its politics. Absurd.Finally, I cannot recall you ever offering any valid points, besides personal attacks. I will not go into this debate again, I'm sure everyone has their own opinions on Bretts, and I do not wish to insult him. I only meant to offer criticism, which I think that is fair enough.A.
Aris Catsambas.... YAWN!
"I will not go into this debate again"I wouldn't - because you lose every time.
Again. This is all so awkward.
Why don't you guys just get a room...
Yeah...I was going to write a serious comment until I realised the thread had been taken over by these two. I will reply to one thing though, because I don't think anyone has clarified this:A. Democrat: "Just because Bretts PERSONALLY finds something offensive does not mean they don't have a right to stand for office without excessive hindrance. "Whether Bretts personally finds something offensive or doesn't is not the issue. He had to investigate what the boys were doing because a lot of students wrote complaints to him, and acted accordingly. Please don't misrepresent the role of Returning Officer.GSA Gender Equality Rep