Best Council Meeting EVER!!!!!!

The_Minister

It was great, the shouts, the insults, the arguements, the revealing goodbye speeches. Two motions on abortion, one on Charles Haughey and a funky dress-up cow. It was a circus!
There was tears, laughter, a git who would not shut up despite having his speaking rights removed and being asked to leave.
It was hilarious.
Pierce Farrell (sorry) kissing and telling on every SU member that ever crossed him, insulting and truth-spitting right and left (take that pun and smoke it)
There was pseudo-law, made-up law and irrelevent law thrown about like gernades with both sides ignoring the other's evidence as being impossible as it contradicted their own.
The lefties pet monkey went further than his normal retarded table-banging and actually jumped up on the table and hopped. He later gave an impassioned but misguided speech on how we were the next "ruling class".

If I've forgotten anything please tell me.


I will run for class-rep next year, this is too good to miss.

anonymous_joe

Do elaborate young Spinner of Fire.

HappyCrackHead

The Final council was amazing, im suprised Firespinner and i both agree, but for different reasons, a few things i'ld like to clear up with you FS.

Firespinner wrote:

a git who would not shut up despite having his speaking rights removed and being asked to leave.

That "git" is Connor McGowan and gives more a of a **** about the students of ucd than half of council does.

Firespinner wrote:

Pierce Morgan kissing and telling on every SU member that ever crossed him, insulting and truth-spitting right and left (take that pun and smoke it)

The least you could do is KNOW HIS NAME! Its PIERCE FARRELL. He was mostly truth spitting at the right. Because as you should have realised by now the left on council are the only ones that give a **** or do a tap.

Firespinner wrote:

The lefties pet monkey[b/] went further than his normal retarded table-banging and actually jumped up on the table and hopped.

I sincerely hope you are not referring to Niall Dolan? He is one of the hardest working students AND class reps that have graced UCD in the last few years. He was ARRESTED nad poorly treated by the gards. I encourage u to do what he did firespinner. see if you could have such convictions as him. then you can try insulting him.

Im thinking that you were at a different council to me. ALL the cocksucking done by Dan, Dave and Jimmy. Not to mention Jane's emotional speech. I encourage you all to go and read the minutes for that union meeting, though i feel bad for Gav who had to try to take them, i think he gave up.

Jane's speech: she opened with "i'm not gonna do a little circle jerk like the rest have" fúcking quality line. she gave out about how the "best things that Jimmy had to say about his presidency was that he got phone chargers and the nite bus, things that the university should provide". Where as she led the anti-modularisation campaign, worked on student issues and tried to make ucd a better place. Her motions on trying to do something about abortion. the fact that she was, i think, the only sabbat to make each of her reports on time. the only one who really did her job. I say fair fúcks to you jane if you read this. YOU ARE THE MAN! rrr... WOMAN!

You Rock and you know it!

Chinafoot

Firespinner wrote:

The lefties pet monkey went further than his normal retarded table-banging and actually jumped up on the table and hopped.

Consider this your second and last warning.

dajaffa

Two personal highlights:

The lefties accusing the righties of voting like sheep. Three woeds: pot, kettle and black.

Also, hearing a groan of "dead in the water" when Pierce decided to support that fresher's guide abortion type motion.

I know I said two, but Paddy resigning and then coming back. Priceless

Jonny Arson

Jaysus the SU becoming like the House Of Commons now. :rolleyes:

singingstranger

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Im thinking that you were at a different council to me. ALL the cocksucking done by Dan, Dave and Jimmy. Not to mention Jane's emotional speech. I encourage you all to go and read the minutes for that union meeting, though i feel bad for Gav who had to try to take them, i think he gave up.

Gav never gives up. He just stands and bangs his head against a blackboard for a while sometimes.
14 pages of A4 shorthand in size 10 font, though, that's a new record...

ferdi

singingstranger, are you the guy on the SU ball posters?

The_Minister

singingstranger wrote:

Gav never gives up. He just stands and bangs his head against a blackboard for a while sometimes.
14 pages of A4 shorthand in size 10 font, though, that's a new record...

When can we see the minutes? That council was hilarious, I hope someone taped it.

Hermione*

singingstranger wrote:

Gav never gives up. He just stands and bangs his head against a blackboard for a while sometimes.
14 pages of A4 shorthand in size 10 font, though, that's a new record...

Sounds like a fun job! Never go to council, but kinda wishing I had now, it sounds like a madhouse!

singingstranger

ferdi wrote:

singingstranger, are you the guy on the SU ball posters?

*nods* Stubble and all.

scop

singingstranger wrote:

*nods* Stubble and all.

Bunny Rabbit Guy?

Personally I have never attended Su council nor would want to, hearing the stories only confirms this for me.

I'd much rather sit in the bar, smoke a spliff, look at ducks, wander to my locker, stare at ducks some more, buy fruit pastilles and so on.

But since I am oblidged by cicumstance I stick with the lefties, I am alas surrounded by thier militias. Plus the right wingers dont talk to me. :eek:

ferdi

and do you know the bloke with the black hat sitting behind you in the lecture theatre ?

singingstranger

Not the bunny rabbit guy, the passed-out-with-the-Buckfast guy. And I don't know the bloke, but I'm told his name is A

---

y P----r by another Carlovian...

Scraggs

ferdi wrote:

and do you know the bloke with the black hat sitting behind you in the lecture theatre ?

Yeah i was wondering that meself....he looks v familiar

ferdi

its James from Carlow!!!

singingstranger

Yeah, we nabbed a batch of civillian Carlovians in the Student Centre when we were on the way to Health Sciences to do it...

TheVan

God I may possibly run for class rep next year as our rep this year was complete gack!

I'd love to impose my views in council.....bring on the dictatorship of
The "Genghis Ceauşescu" Van!

The_Minister

HappyCrackHead wrote:

That "git" is Connor McGowan and gives more a of a **** about the students of ucd than half of council does.

He was billigerant, rude, obnoxious and a host of other adjectives. He could not let anyone else speak without interupting. I'm not sure how many class reps have acted up enough to have both of those motions put against them, but I suspect it is very few. He was a disgrace. To use boards talk - he wasn't a troll he was a flamer.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

The least you could do is KNOW HIS NAME! Its PIERCE FARRELL. He was mostly truth spitting at the right. Because as you should have realised by now the left on council are the only ones that give a **** or do a tap.

I will not get into left vs. right as I set this thread up as a celebration of the entertainment gotten from that meeting, but I would suggest that the left propose only what they know will be defeated, and deride what they know will pass.
Thank you for pointing out that I got the name wrong.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Im thinking that you were at a different council to me. ALL the cocksucking done by Dan, Dave and Jimmy.

Despite the dress-up cow and general uproar I think I would have noticed this:rolleyes: .

Seriously though, It was the last day there is no harm in them praising each other, everyone was very sentimental.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Not to mention Jane's emotional speech.

I left that out because I was not sure how to describe it. In conversation I might have used the word "sweet" to describe the speach and her exit but the word, when typed, seems sarcastic. "Endearing" might be a better word.
While I disagreed with the speech it was nice and, I think, sincere.


Eugeniya's also was very heartfelt.

pretty*monster

Firespinner wrote:

I will not get into left vs. right as I set this thread up as a celebration of the entertainment gotten from that meeting, but I would suggest that the left propose only what they know will be defeated, and deride what they know will pass.

Cop yourself on man, why would we do that? Council breaks my heart almost every fortnight, I'm pretty sure that none of us get a kick out of being in the minority on most issues but I certainly wouldn't keep going back if I didn't think there was good work that could be done if the right motions get passed (and the wrong ones get canned)

I've seen the councilors on the 'left' break their balls all year working for the union. I don't think any of us get a kick out of having to fight tooth and nail to get anything even vaguely progressive pushed through.
Disagree with our policies and politics by all means (I'm sure you will), but it is an unbelievable insult to all the thankless f*cking work I've seen done this year for you to imly that we're just being controversial for sh*ts and giggles

HappyCrackHead

The thing about council is that you can very quickly assertain those people who have convictions and those who do not.

I've only been to council a few times. But one can very quickly deduce that it is a body that CAN get things done IF it is allowed.

IF you have never heard a peep from your class rep or have and didnt like the way they said they would vote or act the my suggestion is GET UP OFF UR ASS and do it yourself. To Scop i would say that surely the story of how mad council was last nite is EVERY REASON to want to get involved. It ought to be taken seriously. If one in every ten students attended council just once they would have a wholley different perspective on it.

Most dont, they just bitch, moan and gripe like ya'll do.

And a lot of people in council do behave like sheep. This pot calling a kettle black thing is BS. most of the "left bank" will speak on some motion during the proceedings or not wait to see what the others do before voting. in the case of the centre or the right its a small group of five who are always having their say and the others DO wait to see how they vote before putting up hands. thats why votes need to be counted and re-counted coz their hands go up or down depending on what their puppetmasters tell them.

This is a fairly straight forward observation.

You can call me biased, but you can't call me a liar.

The_Minister

HappyCrackHead wrote:

And a lot of people in council do behave like sheep. This pot calling a kettle black thing is BS. most of the "left bank" will speak on some motion during the proceedings or not wait to see what the others do before voting. in the case of the centre or the right its a small group of five who are always having their say and the others DO wait to see how they vote before putting up hands. thats why votes need to be counted and re-counted coz their hands go up or down depending on what their puppetmasters tell them.
.

I think everyone was laughing because when one left-oriented person (I think enda) called the others sheep, only five minutes before someone in the left pocket had said, very audibly, "quick lads put up your hands".

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

Cop yourself on man, why would we do that? Council breaks my heart almost every fortnight, I'm pretty sure that none of us get a kick out of being in the minority on most issues but I certainly wouldn't keep going back if I didn't think there was good work that could be done if the right motions get passed (and the wrong ones get canned)

I've seen the councilors on the 'left' break their balls all year working for the union. I don't think any of us get a kick out of having to fight tooth and nail to get anything even vaguely progressive pushed through.
Disagree with our policies and politics by all means (I'm sure you will), but it is an unbelievable insult to all the thankless f*cking work I've seen done this year for you to imly that we're just being controversial for sh*ts and giggles

Surely you must notice that you (you refering to that one pocket) oppose everything (nearly) that is passed and support everything (nearly) that is defeated. Why can you not compromise and produce workable proposals, instead of making a stand on every issue? There was little chance that the first abortion motion would get through, you knew that and kept going. Saying that I apologise for any offence, I wasn't specifically referring to even that group, and I'm aware that you try hard to make a difference.


EDIT: Don't use the term progressive, its insulting.

Vainglory

Firespinner wrote:

Why can you not compromise and produce workable proposals, instead of making a stand on every issue?

Principles are sometimes pretty hard to compromise on. I suppose it's just the way we are.

HappyCrackHead

I think the need for "quick lads put up your hands" was more because the nature of the chair. who, and i think even firespinner can acknowledge, can be very quick to count, or miscount, the votes of the class reps. at least they dont need to be cajoled into voting a particular way as i have witnessed some people being.

Anyway, Connor McGowan was a legend last nite. to quote grimes he "called a spade a spade..." you know the rest...

Chinafoot

Firespinner wrote:

There was little chance that the first abortion motion would get through, you knew that and kept going.

And why not?

I really don't understand your logic on that one. If there was little chance of it being defeated, would you expect the right to just sit back and give up? I'm asking a genuine question here.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

Principles are sometimes pretty hard to compromise on. I suppose it's just the way we are.

But surely it is more effective to meet the other members half-way, then to sit isolated, and side-lined in your corner. I saw members groan whenever certain others got up to speak because they could predict what would be said. I won't quote Machievelli to you, but doing new things is hard, and there are times when you must accept that most do not feel as strongly as you a certain way.

Vainglory wrote:

I really don't understand your logic on that one. If there was little chance of it being defeated, would you expect the right to just sit back and give up? I'm asking a genuine question here.

I would expect them to oppose it yes, but I would not expect them to continually propose legislation which had no chance of getting through, just to make a point. The only legislation that I can remember the left getting through was to pay for costs when anti-war protestors are arrested, yet they continually propose such motions. When it is obvious that a motion will be defeated it is a waste of council time to propose it.

Vainglory

I was actually quite surprised that a motion mandating the President to find out what came under the umbrella of "legal" was defeated. Especially when he wanted us to only do things that were "legal" in the next motion.

But maybe that's just me.

dajaffa

One thing that (sadly) made it very clear that the sides basically disagree with each other on most things, is that the left (who are pro-choice), voted against the refurendum that (if passed) makes the UCD SU stance closer to what their own is.

OK, they aren't going to get the abortion clinics info in the Fresher's guide, but I thought that they would have seen the refurendum as a step in the right direction as far as they're concerned, though they may have wanted it to do more...

TheVan

Good God

Its this sort of partisan politics that has ruined US governance and SU politics in UCD......

I have my views and beliefs and feel I am entitled to disagree with people of other persuasions (and I often do!) but I will happily work with them! Partisans and extremists destroy politics and governance. Bring back common sense and pragmatism!

Get a grip the lot of ye

Vainglory

We're running our own referendum, actually. Watch this space.

Vainglory

dajaffa wrote:

One thing that (sadly) made it very clear that the sides basically disagree with each other on most things, is that the left (who are pro-choice), voted against the refurendum that (if passed) makes the UCD SU stance closer to what their own is....

In my opinion, a referendum that acknowledges the 1995 Abortion Information Act as being legitimate and says we should act within it is not one that brings the SU stance closer to my own.

dajaffa

I'm not disagreeing but surely lobbying the government to legalise abortion is good in your eyes, even if this ref wasn't allowed to run, the motion to have the clinic info in the Fresher's Guide was defeated anyway. Surely it's better to give the info in a seperate welfare handbook, than not at all...

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

I was actually quite surprised that a motion mandating the President to find out what came under the umbrella of "legal" was defeated. Especially when he wanted us to only do things that were "legal" in the next motion.

But maybe that's just me.

It was defeated because it was a dishonest and perfidious motion. It excluded legal advice as an option for determining the legality of the motion, in effect forcing the union to turn to the courts, a result which was sought already by Kate O'Hanlon. In effect Council had already decided on this. It was a Trojan Horse motion.

Vainglory

Firespinner wrote:

It was defeated because it was a dishonest and perfidious motion. It excluded legal advice as an option for determining the legality of the motion, in effect forcing the union to turn to the courts, a result which was sought already by Kate O'Hanlon. In effect Council had already decided on this. It was a Trojan Horse motion.

What good is legal advice if you only get it from ONE person and take that as gospel? I had more legal advice, from more people, which said the opposite to what the Union Legal Advisor said, but of course that didn't matter because people chose to ignore it.

Vainglory

dajaffa wrote:

I'm not disagreeing but surely lobbying the government to legalise abortion is good in your eyes, even if this ref wasn't allowed to run, the motion to have the clinic info in the Fresher's Guide was defeated anyway. Surely it's better to give the info in a seperate welfare handbook, than not at all...

Our referendum will include the bit about lobbying the government for abortion services within the state, I don't disagree with that part.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

What good is legal advice if you only get it from ONE person and take that as gospel? I had more legal advice, from more people, which said the opposite to what the Union Legal Advisor said, but of course that didn't matter because people chose to ignore it.

They should ask many experts, but the opinions of pro-choice activists, willing to represent pro-bono and spoiling for a fight cannot be taken seriously when unbiased sources differ.

dajaffa

Agree with that one alright. Pro-choice lawyers would want us to do it, so of they could end up defending us in court in a case that would set legal precedent (one way or the other), which (not that I know), would be a lawyer's dream. The SU legal advisor (who isn't actively pro-choice as far as I'm aware) thought we'd loose. It was emphasised that this was his opinion, but that's al that can be given until a case goes to court...

The_Minister

dajaffa wrote:

Agree with that one alright. Pro-choice lawyers would want us to do it, so of they could end up defending us in court in a case that would set legal precedent (one way or the other), which (not that I know), would be a lawyer's dream.

There is a certain prestige attached to such cases if thats what you mean.

dajaffa

That's the jist of it alright.

HappyCrackHead

DUH!!!

Who wouldnt want the case? its a career maker!!!

Who in their right mind wouldnt wanna say, "i was in UCD when we brought the government to its knees, and the nation too its senses over abortion"!???

The referendum is a joke, that stuff about lobbying government is crap. More influential and focused groups have been lobbying for "a woman's right to choose" in this country for decades.

Not to mention this referendum still retains UCD's non-directive policy and actively lobbying the government for abortion would violate that.

*(afterthought) Jane's amendment to the referndum specifically stating what we all know, that they dont wanna give out details of these numbers or addresses without prior consulation, was shot down.

Read between the lines.

They just want to prevent any officer repeating the actions of Jane Horgan-Jones who put up numbers and addresses on her door, which where thrice torn down by our illustrious acting-president/president-elect/president for life Dan Hayden.

Stick that in ur anti-choice pipe and blow smoke out ur bee-hive

The_Minister

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Who in their right mind wouldnt wanna say, "i was in UCD when we brought the government to its knees, and the nation too its senses over abortion"!???

Pro-lifers?:rolleyes: People who are against abortion on moral grounds but wouldn't regard themselves as pro-life

HappyCrackHead

oh yeah i forgot.... not everyone is as much of a "progressive thinker" as i am. It's a woman's choice and she shouldnt have to travel in order to have an abortion.

Maybe pro-lifers should spend less time trying to prevent people from having a choice and more time supporting the other alternatives, adoption, foster etc...

pretty*monster

I read an article a while ago exploring the idea that few people on either side of the vicious abortion debate in the State's give a hoot about women's choices or murdered babies and the whole thing is an excusse for two groups who hate each other to hate each other more...

I guess wednesday's council reminded me of that.

pretty*monster

I read an article a while ago exploring the idea that few people on either side of the vicious abortion debate in the State's give a hoot about women's choices or murdered babies and the whole thing is an excusse for two groups who hate each other to hate each other more...

I guess wednesday's council reminded me of that.

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

I read an article a while ago exploring the idea that few people on either side of the vicious abortion debate in the State's give a hoot about women's choices or murdered babies and the whole thing is an excusse for two groups who hate each other to hate each other more...

I guess wednesday's council reminded me of that.

Most people are pretty centre, and very vague on their beliefs. TBH I've always felt that any kind of "moral" referendum should require a 50%+ turnout to be valid, as you are imposing a moral viewpoint on the majority. Technical referendums can just have the 10%

pretty*monster

A pro-choice stance doesn't push anything on anyone.

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

A pro-choice stance doesn't push anything on anyone.

I'm fairly sure that some people oppose abortion...you may hear them sometimes, referring to your beliefs as pro-death, waving pictures near O'connell street of chopped up babies, seeing abortion as a socially acceptable holocaust......
I really doubt that Youth 2000 or Christian Union would take it lying down (I think that there is another one but I forget the name:o )

Hermione*

Actually I agree with pretty*monster. I couldn't imagine ever having an abortion, but I believe it should be legalised to give people the choice as to whether or not they want one. My parents are practising Catholics, yet they've always opposed abortion referundums on the basis that their beliefs shouldn't affect other people's options.

Sorry for going o/t, I really hate the presumption that if you're pro-choice you 'approve' of abortion. So council, yeah ...

The_Minister

You're right Hermione. Coucil was great - everyone lost their dignity, and it was just great in general.

Samos

Why is the union's stance called non-directive, when this is clearly the same as pro-choice (that is, giving information on all the possible outcomes and allowing the affected person to decide)? As far as I can gather, the furore is over the provision of contact information for foreign abortion clinics, which is technically illegal. However, this information is freely available on the internet for anyone who wants it, so why was it necessary to type this material up and present it in a public location?

There is only a tangential relationship between what is illegal and what is unethical. The law only provides a bare minimum for acceptable conduct, but I would certainly not rely on this for providing principles by which I ought to live. In many cases I feel that it can inhibit ethical behaviour by restricting free conduct, and personally I would like a world where nobody could decide what is acceptable for me.

Those who are 'pro-life' simply want to impose their beliefs of what is proper conduct on others. Personally, I think that it is unethical to exploit animals for persoanl benefit, but I would not support a law that would dictate this to anyone. An imprortant part of making an ethical choice is that it not be forced on the person by threat of punishment, but accepted because it conforms to moral axioms, such as making the world a fairer place or increaing overall happiness, etc.