seen the hist email yet?

ilovemybrick

seen the hist email yet?
on a similar note to "the post" but this time from a more senior source.
should make the polling intersteing.

ApeXaviour

Not all of us are members of or have dealings the hist et al. Would ya be kind enough to copy, paste and quote the email please?

If this is anything to do with the elections, please e-mail it to education@tcdsu.org. Thanks.

Marq

"Dear members,

A recent news article in Trinity News described in a part of it, a story
involving the College Historical Society (furthermore referred to as the CHS),
also known as the ‘Hist’.

There has been much discussion around campus and on internet sites about this
article and also many requests from students and members for an explanation
from the CHS on this matter. There has also been a public accusation that this
is the usual sort of ‘bitching’ that emanates from the CHS.

As Auditor of the CHS it is my responsibility to act as spokesperson for the CHS
and also to protect its good name. The statement below is intended to clarify
the position of the CHS.

‘The story was not provided to the newspaper by the CHS in any official capacity
and we were not asked for any comment or official verification of the facts
regarding the story of anonymous emails in the CHS and the named election
candidate: John McGuirk, before it was printed.

Two years ago a series of anonymous emails were sent from a ‘Concerned Histie’
to a group of approximately twenty people in the Hist, who were very active in
the society and known to each other. These emails were sent from an external
computer and from an unknown email address.

These emails made specific allegations of sexual harassment against a member and
made threats of further anonymous postings on internet sites utilised by
members, and also demanded resignations. Other allegations were also made.

The CHS is not in a position to comment on specific content, just on the broad
details of what happened and as to what the official stance of the CHS is
regarding what was printed in a newspaper that is circulated all around
College.

The emails caused serious hurt to the individuals named and damaged the CHS
greatly. The anonymous emails were dealt with internally and privately to
protect the image of the society, but most importantly to protect the
reputation of the individuals slandered in the electronic mail.

A full public offering of the emails would have been disastrous for the accused
individuals and owing to the small group of people that the emails were
circulated to; it was immediately known and quickly established that the
allegations were false.

The source of the emails was eventually traced. Following this, the individual
responsible for the emails sent an open email from his recognised TCD address,
apologising for the hurt he had caused.

The CHS was not in a position to initiate disciplinary proceedings, as the Laws
of the Society do not provide for situations outside of our meetings. The CHS
cannot comment on what disciplinary measures the individuals affected by the
emails may have sought from College.

When the identity of the anonymous sender was revealed as John McGuirk he
apologised to both the individuals named, to everyone who received the emails
and finally to the society in general for the damage caused and this final
part, the apology to the society, was accepted by the CHS’

The CHS will make no further comment on the story and cannot comment for the
other individuals concerned.

Yours sincerely

Cathal McCann
Auditor
236th Session
College Historical Society"

(emboldened emphases my own)

shay_562

Probably too late to make any appreciable difference to the election results, but still good from the point-of-view that it's all out in the open now.

Time Magazine

I wish I could comment on this.

Nietzschean

Angry Banana wrote:

I wish I could comment on this.

well i ain't going to stop ye if its on topic and non-libelous*...



*this does not imply/confirm any previous post by AB was libelous in anyway.

europerson

Angry Banana wrote:

I wish I could comment on this.

Go right ahead and comment! Utilise your right to free speech.

Nietzschean

europerson wrote:

Go right ahead and comment! Utilise your right to free speech.

for the record, there is no right to free speach on boards.ie

europerson

Nietzschean wrote:

for the record, there is no right to free speach on boards.ie

Fair enough. I suppose it is a private web-site after all. Can Boards.ie get in trouble for "facilitating" libel, notwithstanding the possibility that such may not be libel, though?

ilovemybrick

dont agree with the email being published here. thats why i didnt copy it. but should make it interesting i think. nothing slanderous just a very well written and thought out email.

Marq

why do you disagree with the email being posted here? the Hist itself has no problem with that email being posted here.

ApeXaviour

ilovemybrick wrote:

dont agree with the email being published here. thats why i didnt copy it.

I don't see the problem

desertcircus

It seems rather untoward that the Hist audotir would choose to send such an email at this point in the campaign. If the interest had been in protecting the good name of the Hist, then surely this email would have been sent last week upon publication of the article. The fact that it instead appeared in the one day between the end of hustings and the close of polling would indicate that it was deliberately timed to damage John's electoral chances as badly as possible - something societies are not meant to engage in, and something utterly unrelated to the ostensible reason for sending out the email. Whatever anyone thinks of John McGuirk, it doesn't excuse the deliberate decision to try and nobble his campaign using society resources when numerous members of that society's committe would be vehemently opposed to such action and when that decision is made without any communication to the committee members of that society.

Inventing an imagined charge of "bitchiness" to justify a character assassination released at the one point in the campaign when McGuirk has no opportunity to answer back is bad faith.

Pythia

Is this allowed in a TCD election?

Time Magazine

It is not "not allowed" and therefore (by my definition) allowed.

Either way, the Electoral Commission have no remit over the actions of a society. Nor have they remit over actions of an individual; only candidates.

The EC could, I suppose, bring it to the attention of the Junior Dean but that would probably not succeed - issuing a clarification email/statement a week after an article is published as opposed to a day/fortnight after is hardly a grave offence.

Another option perhaps for the EC would be to make complaint to the CSC - but I don't expect the CSC would entertain such a complaint. The dog on the street knows the CSC and the SU have burned several bridges this year over postering.

Agent Smith

why cant we all Just Get along?


also, the auditor of the his is sitting beside me!

europerson

agent smith wrote:

why cant we all Just Get along?!

That would be boring.

Nietzschean

Angry Banana wrote:

The dog on the street knows the CSC and the SU have burned several bridges this year over postering.

the SU and DUCAC have had some run in's over that too from what i've heard...

Cathal McCann

Luke,

As Auditor of the Hist I may take any oppurtunity to inform members of anything I think relevant to the society.

The email to the members of the Hist made speciifc reference, and was a reply to, the article that appeared in Trinity News. This article referenced the Hist several times and we were not asked asked to give an official statement. I may inform the members of the specifics if I so choose. It damaged the Hist and presented an image of the society I was not happy with.

The email was not an attack on John. It explained the exact details of a situation that occured 2 years ago.

The Hist had dealth with the anonymous emails then, and there had been no more about it since.

It is not my fault that the story become public when John decided to run for President.

It was not a use of society resources to influence the election. It was a statement of fact regarding an incident that occured two years ago. Members can read it, and use it to form their own opinion. I did not assert anything about John in the emails that might be interpreted as taking sides in a SU election, simply an explanation of events.

As Auditor I have the perogative to send to the members whatever I feel is in the interests of the society whether it is publicising meetings or clarifying a story about the society.

Finally, I do not need the sanction of the committee to do such Luke. You of all people should know that.

The Auditor is empowered to look after the best interests of the Society and I felt I did that. The statement provides the reasons why it was sent today.

PHB

When John made his remark in the newspaper, claiming it was typical for something like this, the initial story, to come out of the hist, he took a cheap shot in an attempt to distance himself from the story, to try and made it less valid or fake.

A response is totally justified.
If it effects the election, good, past actions should reflect if somebody gets elected or not, and the reason people are angry about the timing, and not the content, is because its all true, and it annoys them that they can't stop it coming out.

What goes around comes around

ilovemybrick

Marq wrote:

why do you disagree with the email being posted here? the Hist itself has no problem with that email being posted here.

i just would not be the one to have posted it. though i support it and its intention whichever one you think it may have. also im not the Hist so dont represent them. i as a member stand fully beind the auditor of the society and hope others would do the same in his place of responsibility.

Stargal

Angry Banana wrote:

Another option perhaps for the EC would be to make complaint to the CSC - but I don't expect the CSC would entertain such a complaint. The dog on the street knows the CSC and the SU have burned several bridges this year over postering.

Come on Enda, you know yourself that the CSC is a hell of a lot more professional than that. Whatever disagreements there may have been this year between the CSC and the SU over postering have been minor and would in no way influence any decision on such a separate and distinct issue.

If the EC felt that they had grounds for a complaint then they could of course come to the CSC about it - but frankly there's nothing there. Cathal's e-mail was fair and even-handed.

Crash

you know, i knew this was coming, but i really didnt expect the actual email to be as fair as that. while my views on the whole situation are still up in the air, gotta hand it to you cathal, that was a very well written email.

Marq

I'm quite happy to post that email. Cathal's response to the issue is tactful and balanced, and also indisputably honest. You will not see John Mcguirk post here to argue with one sentence of the email that Cathal has sent out.

cuckoo

Content - go the Hist!

Timing, c'mon, that could have been sent a day or two after the paper came out - why leave it so long?

shay_562

To be fair, no matter when it was sent, people were going to complain. If it had been sent straight away (which would be quite reactionary - better to wait and see if TN would maybe withdraw certain comments or admit to being a factually inaccurate rag first), people would have complained about Cathal trying to hobble the elections anyway - as it was, at the very least a day and more likely two days had passed before anyone even heard about this. And had it been sent a week later, people either would have complained about attacking the new SU president with old problems, or else about keeping information from the voters before the election. People always find something to complain about.

As to the e-mail in general, I'm fully behind it. A dignified and even-handed response to TN's usual waffle and claptrap.

Pet

A dignified and even-handed response to TN's usual waffle and claptrap.

Andrew and Christine will collect your ****ing head for that.



And rightly so, the Trinity News is not crap! It's very well written actually. Gets lots of awards too.

Pythia

What's that I hear of impeachment?
Oh dear...

Nietzschean

Pythia wrote:

What's that I hear of impeachment?
Oh dear...

Yeah they tried it on Bill alright, but like he's a popular guy, and afterall he only did what any normal guy would do as president of the US. Though really your a bit behind the times if you only heard about that now.....


As for what you actually ment, either spit it all out properly or say nothing, that ****e is annoying for those of us who have just a passing interesting in all this SU/hist crap.

foxybrowne

Its hardly fair to send around this kind of thing during an election?

Nietzschean

foxybrowne wrote:

Its hardly fair to send around this kind of thing during an election?

erm, well no one is blaming TN for bringing it up, so they do deserve the right to get their side across. And given a normal outside college senario during an election is exactly when the dirt on someone normally comes up.............. don't see how its unfair, ye shouldn't be running for something if ye have skeltons in yer closet that will turn the voters off...... or have them hidden better.....

foxybrowne

I suppose, sure its all out now anyway.

Awayindahils

shay_562 wrote:

As to the e-mail in general, I'm fully behind it. A dignified and even-handed response to TN's usual waffle and claptrap.

Pet wrote:

Andrew and Christine will collect your ****ing head for that.



And rightly so, the Trinity News is not crap! It's very well written actually. Gets lots of awards too.

Pet wrote:

Ditto.

They deserve your head for that

Andrew 83

shay_562 wrote:

better to wait and see if TN would maybe withdraw certain comments or admit to being a factually inaccurate rag first

A dignified and even-handed response to TN's usual waffle and claptrap.

This is the usual unbacked up nonsense that a few people are always coming up with. As usual I say show the evidence, where is the story on John factually inaccurate, waffle or claptrap? I'll post the article here so people can judge. I really do not understand these comments. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they shouldn't be printed.

As has been said in any election the voters are entitled to know information like this. If a candidate in a general election had done similarly the voters would want to know. The Bush stuff is also relevant as an anti-war voter is entitled to know if they are voting a pro-war candidate into office.


Abusive email allegations against presidential candidate

John McGuirk, a candidate in the election for Students’ Union president, has twice been accused of abusing colleagues in anonymous emails, Trinity News has learned.

The final year political science student resigned from his position as Fianna Fáil youth policy co-ordinator two years ago after allegations that he circulated libellous emails about fellow party members.

Twelve messages were sent to Fianna Fáil members and the media from an anonymous Hotmail account called ‘FFinsider’ between July and September 2003. One email accused a local election candidate of racial abuse. Other emails criticised senior figures in Fianna Fáil.

After an internal investigation McGuirk, 19 at the time, was accused of being the source of the defamatory messages. Although he vigorously denies involvement, McGuirk resigned from his post in Fianna Fáil.

Several months later, McGuirk was caught up in similar scandal. A series of anonymous attacks on students were sent to members of the Historical Society.

The messages were traced to McGuirk, at the time a first year student who was active in the Hist. One of the students that had been attacked by McGuirk is understood to have lodged a complaint with the Junior Dean but no disciplinary action was taken.

Mr McGuirk’s political views have also proved controversial. When George W Bush visited Ireland in 2004, McGuirk received press attention for his active role in a ‘demonstration of support’ for the
President.

Speaking to Trinity News, Mr McGuirk said, “These allegations are misleading and petty. I confirm that I did out a Fianna Fáil candidate who made openly racist and bigoted comments about his constituents. I did so openly and told so first, and would do so again.”

“As for criticising senior party members, I do not see how doing so is a bad quality in an SU president.”

McGuirk continued, “As regards the Hist, bullying and abuse of the College network is a very serious allegation warranting severe disciplinary measures. It
was investigated fully. No disciplinary action was taken and the complaint
was not upheld.”

He added, “Such stories coming out of the Hist after four years, in the middle of an election, is typical.”

The elections for the five Students’ Union sabbatical positions will take place next week.



I think anyone neutral would agree that this is a very even handed and fair article. That fact that a number of John's critics have complained to me that it was not hard enough should emphasise that.

ilovemybrick

Andrew 83 wrote:

I think anyone neutral would agree that this is a very even handed and fair article. That fact that a number of John's critics have complained to me that it was not hard enough should emphasise that.

though i agree with both the general content and the intention to inform of the article it would not be fair to call it completely fair. dont get me wrong i have no issue with what was written more with what was left out.i think that an official comment from the Hist would have added to the fairness and negated john's ability to call it typical Hist/GMB bitchiness. it would also have removed the need/excuse (whichever you deem it to be) for the Cathal to set the record straight in his oh-so-well-timed email. it would have left the TN in the position of having run an unbiased piece (not an attack as it can be perceived seeing as john is asked to comment in his "defence") and the Hist in the position of being accused (informally not by any actual committee or suchlike) of trying to influence an election.

Andrew 83

I'm not sure why the Hist weren't contacted to be honest.

shay_562

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they shouldn't be printed.

Oh, believe me, this has nothing to do with not liking the facts - hell, I'm glad to see them being publicly aired. What pissed me off about the article was getting comment from one side involved and not even bothering to consult the other. The article was largely centred around an internal dispute in the Hist, and publishing comments from McGuirk criticising the Hist (saying it's 'typical') and giving no opportunity for response, to the point where the auditor actually had to send out a seperate e-mail to clarify the society's position seems to me to be pretty piss-poor 'journalism', and saying "I'm not sure how that happened" is hardly an excuse.

Andrew 83

I assume someone in the Hist was contacted in order to get the story to begin with. The Hist was also only part of the story thouhg. Fianna Fail and Bush were equally involved and there's no comment from either of them.

I hold that it's in no way 'piss poor 'journalism''. You still haven't shown where it's factually inaccurate, waffle or claptrap.

shay_562

Fianna Fail and Bush were equally involved and there's no comment from either of them.

Not getting a comment from Bush for a small college newspaper is understandable. I'd have hoped somebody at least contacted Fianna Fail to confirm details about that part of the story, but again, it's probably too small on their radar to warrant comment. The GMB is less than a minute's walk from the publications office in house 6, and the Hist are the only one of the three likely to be affected in any way by the story. To be fair, my journalistic experience is minimal at best, but I would have thought seeking some kind of comment from them on this would be a given. Apparently not.

You still haven't shown where it's factually inaccurate, waffle or claptrap.

I never said anything about it being 'factually inaccurate', and 'waffle' was more a generaly levelled accusation at the paper than at this one article in specific, so I'll cheerfully withdraw it in this case. I'd maintain that 'claptrap' holds for the reasons stated above about offering one side of a story only. I know that every angle of every piece can't be covered, but when an angle is easily covered and is extremely relevant to the piece, I'm surprised at it being let slip so casually.

Stargal

shay_562 wrote:

better to wait and see if TN would maybe admit to being a factually inaccurate rag first

shay_562 wrote:

I never said anything about it being 'factually inaccurate'

Since Andrew posted challenging you to point out what was factually incorrect with the article, you've completely changed your tack, and are now focusing on the lack of Hist involvement in the article. The article wasn't one -sided. It summarised correctly what had happened and got comments from John about it. If you're asking whether it was one-sided to print the story in the first place, well, that's a whole other debate.

ilovemybrick

stargal wrote:

Since Andrew posted challenging you to point out what was factually incorrect with the article, you've completely changed your tack, and are now focusing on the lack of Hist involvement in the article.

lol. she has you there. it is as though your argument may be completely based on your own opinion!:D

stargal wrote:

The article wasn't one -sided. It summarised correctly what had happened and got comments from John about it. If you're asking whether it was one-sided to print the story in the first place, well, that's a whole other debate.

summarised correctly isnt exactly true as there is a factual issue (that i will NOT be drawn on so dont even bother) which isnt dealt with and traditionally a two sided argument would have the facts as the paper sees them and then the opinion and positions of both sides.

Zachary Taylor

Factually accurate or not, the issue that I had with the article is that John's was the final word on the allegations and his quote implied that because no disciplinary action was taken then either what he did did not constitute abuse of the college network or bullying or that he hadn't done anything, an implication that's further enforced by his comment that this is typical of the Hist.

Someone reading the article might well have thought that John hadn't sent any anonymous emails and that Hist people were making it all up, or that he had done soemthing along those lines but not all that bad. If a paper is going to make accusations against someone it should make sure that there is something to back them up and that this something is presented in the article. This could have been done by talking to someone in the Hist.

Time Magazine

There's one very, very large element of information missing from the "the Hist should have been contacted" argument.

The Hist were not asked for an official comment; but for God's sake do you think the allegations surfaced out of thin air?

I didn't write the story and nor did I feed it to the author, but I know that he wasn't in college at the time of the event. There must have been contact. The only other possibility is that he had an ability to get the gossip of the inner-workings of a student society in a university while doing his Leaving Cert. The man's good, but not that good.

wowy

You're right Angry Banana-the story didn't come out of thin air. From what I gather (covering my bases for fear of slander!!!!) the story came from FORMER members of hist commitee that are still reasonably active in the society, who happen to have a personal dislike of McGuirk. So that's the extent of Hist involvement. It was unofficial contact with the hist. However, they don't represent the hist anymore, and as such the hist should have been contacted for comment.

Agent Smith

stargal wrote:

Come on Enda, you know yourself that the CSC is a hell of a lot more professional than that.

:v: :v:

shay_562

Since Andrew posted challenging you to point out what was factually incorrect with the article, you've completely changed your tack, and are now focusing on the lack of Hist involvement in the article.

Hee! I was wondering where he got 'factually inaccurate' from - that'll teach me to read back over my posts properly in future. Or, you know, to think more carefully about what I'm posting in the first place. But even with that said, 'factually inaccurate' was more a generally levelled accusation at the paper than at the article in question. There's an argument to be made about whether the slightly shaky implications of McGuirk's quotes being published unchallenged constitutes at best an omission and at worst an obfuscation of facts, but to be perfectly honest I don't care enough to try and argue the case for that. I've offered the reason for my disatisfaction with the article, such that it relates to the topic (why I agree with the e-mail), and both you and Andrew (both of whom, I'll assume from Pet and Hilary's earlier "collect my head" comments, are pretty involved with TN?) have outlined why you see no problem with the article. Since we're coming at this from such completely opposing opinions, more bickering is pretty pointless, and will only end with the topic being locked and general bad feeling, which is probably a bad thing. But one last issue:

The Hist were not asked for an official comment; but for God's sake do you think the allegations surfaced out of thin air?

Even if the rumours wowy heard aren't true, half the people in the GMB knew about the e-mails long before the article was publised, even people who weren't in college at the time. It was hardly a well-kept secret, even if the society had avoided doing anything official about it for their own reasons. One person (who could equally have been Phil, Lawsoc, Theo or anyone else who interacts heavily with the Hist) going to TN with the story doesn't constitute a societal position on the matter; contact with one member isn't contact with the society. Thanks to Fresher's Week madness, I'm a member of at least a dozen soceities in college - does that mean that I can comment or offer a position on behalf of any of them?

Time Magazine

wowy wrote:

You're right Angry Banana-the story didn't come out of thin air. From what I gather (covering my bases for fear of slander!!!!) the story came from FORMER members of hist commitee that are still reasonably active in the society, who happen to have a personal dislike of McGuirk. So that's the extent of Hist involvement. It was unofficial contact with the hist. However, they don't represent the hist anymore, and as such the hist should have been contacted for comment.

I see your point and acknowledge it. But let's be reasonable. The story was (presumably) unknown prior to McGuirk's nomination. Had the story originated from official Hist, then that would definitely be... how shall we put this... "well-timed".

For the purposes of the conversation let us assume that the publication was good for the overall knowledge of the College. (Otherwise we're really arguing moot points.) That assumed, it could only have really been leaked, as opposed to signed, dated and sealed. Much like the real world where a civil servant leaks information, the fact that it was an unofficial leak and not an official statement provided room for manoeuver. Additionally, had the reporter in question been informed by a Histy, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the informer suggested to not contact the Hist. Who knows?

As I said, I didn't know about the article prior to publication so I can't comment on the previous members element. I genuinely don't know who let slip to the reporter.

Sleazus

Originally posted by Angry Banana:
That assumed, it could only have really been leaked, as opposed to signed, dated and sealed. Much like the real world where a civil servant leaks information, the fact that it was an unofficial leak and not an official statement provided room for manoeuver. Additionally, had the reporter in question been informed by a Histy, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the informer suggested to not contact the Hist. Who knows?

As I said, I didn't know about the article prior to publication so I can't comment on the previous members element. I genuinely don't know who let slip to the reporter.

Two things about this:

1.) Assuming that the story was leaked by an "involved" member of the society, that doesn't negate the fact the Hist were not consulted. It's standard procedure, especially when making serious allegations (and, like it or not, McGuirk's suggestion that the Hist was interfering in an election with the specific and single-minded intent of ruining his campaign does constitute a serious allegation) to contact the other side. That's why, in cases like you mentioned where civil servants leak, the State is generally asked to give an opinion on the matter. The fact that the opinion is generally one of "no comment" doesn't remove the obligation.

2.) There's absolutely no evidence that there was direct Hist involvement in the original leak. Keep in mind that the author of the article had spent a significant amount of time in the building last year (and was even a finalist of the internal Freshers' Masters competition).

Nietzschean

Well anyway this thread is going no where other than around in circles, so well locked.