Official bitch about daily life in UL

wnolan1992 · 24-02-2015 11:52pm

iLaura wrote: »

See my above statement on why that isn't really the best idea :cool:

Ah shur, 'tis only the constitution. Be grand. :P

iLaura · 25-02-2015 12:02am

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Ah shur, 'tis only the constitution. Be grand. :P

But those items not being voted on takes up lots of council time and stuff

VanishingActs · 25-02-2015 1:28am

iLaura wrote: »

I know its not a bitch BUT;

Don't forget to go to the ULSU UGM tomorrow at 6pm in KBG12! I will love you all forever if you do. Quorum is 100 people so we need everyone to come along.

And I will bitch to the high heavens if we don't reach quorum. Surely you wouldn't want that :P

I'm in class from 9-6 but if I'm not too dead by 6 I'll go along.

Fireball07 · 25-02-2015 1:49am

iLaura wrote: »

Hahaha :P We actually managed to reach quorum for the meeting last semester! But that was in J.Swift so we just pulled people in from Red Raisins

I was at that one, but won't be in UL tomorrow evening, which is a pity... apparently there was some guy in the Red Raisin strongly campaigning for the SU not to take any stance at all in the referendum.

iLaura · 25-02-2015 10:02am

Fireball07 wrote: »

I was at that one, but won't be in UL tomorrow evening, which is a pity... apparently there was some guy in the Red Raisin strongly campaigning for the SU not to take any stance at all in the referendum.

There were 3 guys in fact, but their main agenda is to ensure the SU does not take any political stance in government referenda, and have now gotten enough signatures to hold a referendum to change the constitution to this effect

BriBrows · 25-02-2015 11:31am

Hey guys, it is really important people do come along tonight. I think the SU should take a stance and support ALL of its students rights, not just the majoritys. Other Universities in the country have taken their stance, UCD passed it with 97%. It really is just promoting a bad image of UL if we don't vote yes.

iLaura · 25-02-2015 12:49pm

BriBrows wrote: »

Hey guys, it is really important people do come along tonight. I think the SU should take a stance and support ALL of its students rights, not just the majoritys. Other Universities in the country have taken their stance, UCD passed it with 97%. It really is just promoting a bad image of UL if we don't vote yes.

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. If the SU back the yes campaign they will not be representing all of their members. What about the students who are members of Christain Union and who feel strongly against SSM? The SU won't be representing all its students then. Similarly if the SU backed a no campaign it wouldn't be representing its LGBT members, or general members of the union who are for SSM
This is a really controversal topic and it does need the views of all its members, so if you feel strongly for either argument, PLEASE do come along and share your opinion.

Beargrylls01 · 25-02-2015 2:40pm

The majority want nothing to do with the SU, so relax a bit about it's important stance.

Ave Sodalis · 25-02-2015 3:01pm

iLaura wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. If the SU back the yes campaign they will not be representing all of their members. What about the students who are members of Christain Union and who feel strongly against SSM?

The question is though, should these people be represented? Personally, I think not and would prefer if my Student's Union didn't pander to such narrowminded views that are without reason or logic. I mean, if I wanted to ensure that no man got to university because I don't believe they're intelligent enough for university and the SU didn't back this, I wouldn't be represented by my SU and rightly so. Not to turn this into a SSM thread (there's enough in AH) but unless the No side can actually come up with a valid reason for voting no (something which they have repeatedly failed to do and I've not heard a single valid reason), then I don't feel they deserve a representation. But that's just me.

iLaura · 25-02-2015 3:59pm

Beargrylls01 wrote: »

The majority want nothing to do with the SU, so relax a bit about it's important stance.

If the SU take a side in the vote they arent representing all its members, which goes against the essence of its constitution to represent all members equally

Subutai · 25-02-2015 6:35pm

sup_dude wrote: »

The question is though, should these people be represented?

Yes. If not then should they be compelled (as we are) to fund the Union?

Personally, I think not and would prefer if my Student's Union didn't pander to such narrowminded views that are without reason or logic. I mean, if I wanted to ensure that no man got to university because I don't believe they're intelligent enough for university and the SU didn't back this, I wouldn't be represented by my SU and rightly so.

Here's the crux of the issue, the SU are required to take certain positions. That may be difficult in some instances, and may even upset students. However, the Union should seek to minimise the number of students with whom its positions are misaligned. It should confine that to areas in which it is necessary, which are areas directly relevant to its functioning as a representative body for students to engage with the University.

Not to turn this into a SSM thread (there's enough in AH) but unless the No side can actually come up with a valid reason for voting no (something which they have repeatedly failed to do and I've not heard a single valid reason), then I don't feel they deserve a representation. But that's just me.

I'm completely in favour of Same Sex Marriage, you won't find a more staunch advocate of it. However, that doesn't mean that the SU should take a formal position on it. The reason for this is simple, if the Union gets involved in national political issues, then where do we draw the line? This issue is straightforward, you'd find it hard to find many students against it, but that's not so in all cases.
If we allow a position to be adopted on this, then what justification do we have for preventing other, potentially more contentious, issues to be formally ruled upon by the SU? Should the Union take a pro-choice stance for instance? Should the Union take a stance on the referendum to lower the voting age? Water Charges? Privatisation of public transport? Reintroduction of JLCs? Policy on Zero Hours contracts? Policy on drinks licensing? Legalisation of Drugs? Public Sector Pay agreements? Should the union take a formal stance on what party to support in a General Election? Provided they can get a majority of students to vote for a position then why not? What makes it different from a precedent that would be set by an adopted position on SSM?

There is the potential here to alienate far more students than just the homophobes and bigots who oppose SSM. The SU shouldn't be a vehicle for people to get involved in national politics, we have political organisations within the university who can do that. For the SU it's a distraction from their actual work, which is to represent the interests of students on student issues. If they want to take a position on University issues I've no problem with that. Hell, if they want to expand it to issues of national importance that are directly relevant to the functioning of the University (e.g. Fees and Grant policy) then I'm fine with that. However there is a qualitative difference between that and getting involved in general politics.

Don't forget, the SU will claim to speak for all students, but these organisations can sadly be captured by smaller groups. There's a nice Godwin's law style example of this from history, in which the Deutsche Studentenschaft (German equivalent of the USI), was captured by National Socialists in the 30s. It made pronouncements on behalf of students, and even engaged in book burnings. That's why outside the Humboldt University in Berlin is this memorial: http://www.karieandscott.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/bookburningmemorial.jpg

deaddonkey15 · 25-02-2015 7:44pm

Why does the SU even need to take a side? Can college students not think for themselves?

iLaura · 25-02-2015 7:55pm

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Why does the SU even need to take a side? Can college students not think for themselves?

Firstly, the motion has passed and the SU are taking a stance in favour. As a member of the LGBT said, they are looking for support from the SU in achieving their equal citizen status

Ciano35 · 25-02-2015 10:06pm

Anyone else in the computer room in the library? There's some girl humming away mad to herself

wnolan1992 · 25-02-2015 11:26pm

sup_dude wrote: »

The question is though, should these people be represented? Personally, I think not and would prefer if my Student's Union didn't pander to such narrowminded views that are without reason or logic.

One man's logic is another man's insanity. VERY dangerous to go down that route.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy it passed, voted for it. But to be quite honest I was a little disappointed in how some of the people who were speaking against the motion were treated. It felt like they were almost being derided when they actually had a really valid point.

I mean, let's take the polls as gospel and that they are accurate to the UL population. That puts the Yes side in the referendum at ~75%. So you could say this decision was a no brainer as the majority wanted it. But does it set a precedent for the SU getting involved in political issues in future? Let's say an abortion referendum comes about, say at another UGM a motion like this passes with a 51% majority. Do we want the SU to risk alienating 49% of students? Or would it be better for the SU's stance to be "We're not taking a stance. Our members can make up their own minds." on all issues?

Sorry, that's probably a garbled mess but I hope what I mean makes some sense.

shano_88 · 26-02-2015 12:01am

Ciano35 wrote: »

Anyone else in the computer room in the library? There's some girl humming away mad to herself

Their were 2 girls in the library computer room today with headphones in watching a film with popcorn and sweets while people were queuing for computers!

iLaura · 26-02-2015 12:20am

wnolan1992 wrote: »

One man's logic is another man's insanity. VERY dangerous to go down that route.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy it passed, voted for it. But to be quite honest I was a little disappointed in how some of the people who were speaking against the motion were treated. It felt like they were almost being derided when they actually had a really valid point.

I mean, let's take the polls as gospel and that they are accurate to the UL population. That puts the Yes side in the referendum at ~75%. So you could say this decision was a no brainer as the majority wanted it. But does it set a precedent for the SU getting involved in political issues in future? Let's say an abortion referendum comes about, say at another UGM a motion like this passes with a 51% majority. Do we want the SU to risk alienating 49% of students? Or would it be better for the SU's stance to be "We're not taking a stance. Our members can make up their own minds." on all issues?

Sorry, that's probably a garbled mess but I hope what I mean makes some sense.

The 'main' speaker who was at the back just seemed to be trying to find fault with everything to push off a vote happening, which I think is why so many people started getting chatty whenever he spoke. However, one of his counterparts barely had his mouth open before people began talking and paying no attention to his opinion, which was then addressed, as was right. I do think it was a bit...crude (?) that whenever a person in favour of the motion spoke there was a round of applause, compared to when the no voters spoke and there were mutters and rolled eyes. I do believe that the people who were for the SU remaining neutral didn't present their case in the best manner, and it was definitely different compared to their speil when they were trying to get signatures for their referendum.

But, like was said by the USI speakers; a union cannot possibly please the 100% of its members, it's just not feasible, and that SU's are run by democracy. So, wnolan, if that's the case it does unfortunately look like 49% of the student population would be alienated. A much better idea in my mind would be allow both sides to campaign/canvas on campus about the SU remaining neutral, or for government referenda and that way no student is being left out.

Subutai · 26-02-2015 12:57am

iLaura wrote: »

But, like was said by the USI speakers; a union cannot possibly please the 100% of its members, it's just not feasible, and that SU's are run by democracy.

In fairness, anyone from USI would have to say that, as they can't please even 10% of their members. They are easily the most ineffective lobbying organisation in the state. Funded in the hundreds of thousands of euros each year, with a body of members who until recently would come out for marches in their tens of thousands. Any other political lobby would kill for that. Yet USI accomplished nothing with it. They had 15,000 students in front of leinster house in 2008, the OAPs had a similar number; the government acceded to the demands of the pensioners and then raised the Reg Fee by 600 quid. They had thousands out the following year, the government raised in by 500 quid. They managed to get the education spokesperson and minister-in-waiting to agree not to raise fees, and then failed to hold him to his promise.

If the Irish Farmers Association were this terrible it'd long have been buried under the topsoil. I'd like to think the USI are just incompetent, but given how often they've been led by dyed in the wool Fianna Failers I think they might be deliberately ****.

So, wnolan, if that's the case it does unfortunately look like 49% of the student population would be alienated. A much better idea in my mind would be allow both sides to campaign/canvas on campus about the SU remaining neutral, or for government referenda and that way no student is being left out.

I'd agree with you there. It seems much better to allow everyone to campaign as they see fit and not have the SU take an official stance.

jconnolly94 · 26-02-2015 3:21am

Subutai wrote: »

I'd agree with you there. It seems much better to allow everyone to campaign as they see fit and not have the SU take an official stance.

Everyone can still campaign as they see fit. Tonight the union was asked to follow through on one of its aims and objects; "to promote and actively pursue the betterment of the welfare of its members"
We asked for the unions help. To campaign for our welfare by combating complacency among students.

On the point that it would have been better to allow both sides to campaign first and hold a referendum I would like to say the following:
-The referendum for marriage equality is being held on the 22nd of May.
-A union referendum takes both time and resources to organise.
-This is an issue that can be dealt with through a UGM as outlined in the constitution. This is what happened tonight.

Why should a referendum be held which would detract from the time & resources people can give to the marriage equality campaign? Especially when procedures are already in place to allow students to make these decisions?
The motion passed at tonights UGM in no way prevents people from bringing forward a referendum which would overrule tonights decision. To say that we need to get wait and get the opinion of every student just because some MIGHT deem this issue "controversial" is to belittle just how much the upcoming referendum means to LGBT people.

Subutai · 26-02-2015 3:43am

jconnolly94 wrote: »

Everyone can still campaign as they see fit. Tonight the union was asked to follow through on one of its aims and objects; "to promote and actively pursue the betterment of the welfare of its members"
We asked for the unions help. To campaign for our welfare by combating complacency among students.

On the point that it would have been better to allow both sides to campaign first and hold a referendum I would like to say the following:
-The referendum for marriage equality is being held on the 22nd of May.
-A union referendum takes both time and resources to organise.
-This is an issue that can be dealt with through a UGM as outlined in the constitution. This is what happened tonight.

Why should a referendum be held which would detract from the time & resources people can give to the marriage equality campaign? Especially when procedures are already in place to allow students to make these decisions?
The motion passed at tonights UGM in no way prevents people from bringing forward a referendum which would overrule tonights decision. To say that we need to get wait and get the opinion of every student just because some MIGHT deem this issue "controversial" is to belittle just how much the upcoming referendum means to LGBT people.

They can of course, however a Union which claims to represent them, and does so with funding provided by them, has now taken a stance they may disagree with.

Don't get me wrong. I'm completely in favour of marriage equality, and have little time or concern for those who are not. What I do have concern for are the implications set by the precedent that the SU should take positions on issues of wider national politics that are not directly relevant to its functioning as the representative body for students in their dealings with the university.

As I've said, what happens when people push through a Union position on more contentious issues? The same argument can be made with equal force that a union position on abortion promotes the "the betterment of the welfare of its members". As would a position on zero hours contracts, the national minimum wage, Registered Employment Agreements, Ireland's neutral status, levels of taxation, levels of social welfare provision, national healthcare policy, public sector pay, immigration, school patronage, corporation tax, etc etc. Indeed it's more difficult to come up with a political issue which it couldn't be argued would effect "the betterment of the welfare of its members".

What if I were to argue that a vote for Sinn Féin and a strenuous SU campaign in their favour would promote, given their policy, "the betterment of the welfare of its members"? Would it be correct then, assuming the votes could be obtained, for me to push through a vote binding the SU to an officially pro Sinn Féin position? Should the SU then use its funding, provided by the entirity of the student body, to campaign against its members in Young Fine Gael or Labour Youth?

I am in no way belittling how much the referendum campaign means to LGBT people. Indeed I will be, and have been, involved in promoting it. That doesn't mean however that I support the SU taking a position on it, because I don't support the SU taking a position on such issues at all, regardless of how much I agree with them. The SU doesn't, or at least shouldn't, exist for that.

wnolan1992 · 26-02-2015 4:00am

jconnolly94 wrote: »

Everyone can still campaign as they see fit. Tonight the union was asked to follow through on one of its aims and objects; "to promote and actively pursue the betterment of the welfare of its members"
We asked for the unions help. To campaign for our welfare by combating complacency among students.

On the point that it would have been better to allow both sides to campaign first and hold a referendum I would like to say the following:
-The referendum for marriage equality is being held on the 22nd of May.
-A union referendum takes both time and resources to organise.
-This is an issue that can be dealt with through a UGM as outlined in the constitution. This is what happened tonight.

Why should a referendum be held which would detract from the time & resources people can give to the marriage equality campaign? Especially when procedures are already in place to allow students to make these decisions?
The motion passed at tonights UGM in no way prevents people from bringing forward a referendum which would overrule tonights decision. To say that we need to get wait and get the opinion of every student just because some MIGHT deem this issue "controversial" is to belittle just how much the upcoming referendum means to LGBT people.

To play devil's advocate here, how is it in any way justifiable to say that calling a referendum on the issue would leave no time for campaigning, yet then say that those who don't want the SU to campaignshould hold a referendum to reverse tonight's decision?

Surely by the time the decision could be reversed, the SU would have spent time and resources campaigning for a Yes vote.

Ginge Young · 26-02-2015 4:37am

Subutai wrote: »

What if I were to argue that a vote for Sinn Féin and a strenuous SU campaign in their favour would promote, given their policy, "the betterment of the welfare of its members"? Would it be correct then, assuming the votes could be obtained, for me to push through a vote binding the SU to an officially pro Sinn Féin position? Should the SU then use its funding, provided by the entirity of the student body, to campaign against its members in Young Fine Gael or Labour Youth?

To clear that point up first, the answer is no as the constitution prevents it from doing so. The aims and objectives of the Union are to be carried out without any political affiliation.

As for the main issue at hand, I believe that any Union that represents students should have the ability to take a yes stance/no stance/neutral stance on any issue that they come across realistically. That's the beauty of it, everyone has a vote and things can be decided. As for a range of scenarios you listed above, how many people realistically think individuals will bring forward motions on some these issues? And even if you did, how many people do you think would take them seriously unless they were actually issues that mattered enough to students to get them to engage? I have a bit more faith in the callibre of student that we possess.

You raised the idea of abortion. Personally I currently find that as what some would regard as a sensitive issue. I would vote that the Union takes no stance on it, should it ever be raised. But the important thing is I am allowed the choice to make that decision.

The Union has taken a stance on fees. Allbeit yes, more directly related to University. However this is an issue which effects the lives of many students in a way that has no monetary value. It is an equality issue, plain as. I don't particularly care for any arguments to make it out to be anything other than that.

So, if a Union that represents these students is seeking to ensure that their students are treated as equally as anyone else - then that Union consisting of its membership can avail of the opportunity to vote to deem it as something we as a body should pursue or not. That is democracy.

People who keep raising the idea that well we pay money and they are not representing my view. In all honesty do you think any single decision that is made by the union or could possibly be made by union will satisfy each and every single student out there? Do you think that is what happens with any of the teacher unions, the IMO, the IMNO? The students union are our representatives on issues of *importance* and *relevance* both internally within the University and nationally. They are the only voice students collectively have across the country. Decisions are made by the voting membership. Whether it is related to fees or whether is it related to equality issues. What purpose does it serve to remove that ability other than to distance students and young people further from the opportunity to engage with the issues that matter to them.

Who know's, I can't speculate but there may be issues down the line, months, years whatever that come up that are of the utmost of importance to students, I would like to think they can have the choice to band together as a unit and send out a singular message (whether that be pro, con or neutral), in the best possible way they can to make a decision, democratic vote.

jconnolly94 · 26-02-2015 12:22pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

To play devil's advocate here, how is it in any way justifiable to say that calling a referendum on the issue would leave no time for campaigning, yet then say that those who don't want the SU to campaignshould hold a referendum to reverse tonight's decision?

Surely by the time the decision could be reversed, the SU would have spent time and resources campaigning for a Yes vote.

The problem with what you're saying is that a UGM has the power to make this decision and every student was sent the agenda for the night. We were perfectly entitled to bring the motion to a UGM so why would we call for a referendum, campaign for weeks when we have bigger fish to fry. Especially knowing that IF people do have a problem they will call one. Something they have already done.

By the way they referendum they have called, would essentially stop the union taking a stance on any issue if it were to go through and would prevent the union from campaigning on anything for students. This is not just my opinion and they have been strongly advised by members of the SU to withdraw their petition. And they were the ones saying last nights motion was ambiguously worded.

Subutai · 26-02-2015 12:22pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

To clear that point up first, the answer is no as the constitution prevents it from doing so. The aims and objectives of the Union are to be carried out without any political affiliation.

As for the main issue at hand, I believe that any Union that represents students should have the ability to take a yes stance/no stance/neutral stance on any issue that they come across realistically. That's the beauty of it, everyone has a vote and things can be decided. As for a range of scenarios you listed above, how many people realistically think individuals will bring forward motions on some these issues? And even if you did, how many people do you think would take them seriously unless they were actually issues that mattered enough to students to get them to engage? I have a bit more faith in the callibre of student that we possess.

You raised the idea of abortion. Personally I currently find that as what some would regard as a sensitive issue. I would vote that the Union takes no stance on it, should it ever be raised. But the important thing is I am allowed the choice to make that decision.

The Union has taken a stance on fees. Allbeit yes, more directly related to University. However this is an issue which effects the lives of many students in a way that has no monetary value. It is an equality issue, plain as. I don't particularly care for any arguments to make it out to be anything other than that.

So, if a Union that represents these students is seeking to ensure that their students are treated as equally as anyone else - then that Union consisting of its membership can avail of the opportunity to vote to deem it as something we as a body should pursue or not. That is democracy.

People who keep raising the idea that well we pay money and they are not representing my view. In all honesty do you think any single decision that is made by the union or could possibly be made by union will satisfy each and every single student out there? Do you think that is what happens with any of the teacher unions, the IMO, the IMNO? The students union are our representatives on issues of *importance* and *relevance* both internally within the University and nationally. They are the only voice students collectively have across the country. Decisions are made by the voting membership. Whether it is related to fees or whether is it related to equality issues. What purpose does it serve to remove that ability other than to distance students and young people further from the opportunity to engage with the issues that matter to them.

Who know's, I can't speculate but there may be issues down the line, months, years whatever that come up that are of the utmost of importance to students, I would like to think they can have the choice to band together as a unit and send out a singular message (whether that be pro, con or neutral), in the best possible way they can to make a decision, democratic vote.

Two things here. The first is that claiming that such problems with the Union being made adopt stances on a plethora of other controversial national issues won't occur because it would be difficult to get votes, isn't sufficient reason to avoid setting a precedent. We don't know what state the Union will be in in future years. The principle is that one avoids setting poor precedent because unintended outcomes are always unforeseen and unintended.
Secondly, the comparison that you draw with the INTO or other actual unions doesn't work. Teachers are not compelled to be members of the INTO, they have to sign up and they can leave at any time. People regularly do leave Trade Unions when they adopt positions that they disagree with.

Ginge Young · 26-02-2015 12:41pm

Subutai wrote: »

Two things here. The first is that claiming that such problems with the Union being made adopt stances on a plethora of other controversial national issues won't occur because it would be difficult to get votes, isn't sufficient reason to avoid setting a precedent. We don't know what state the Union will be in in future years. The principle is that one avoids setting poor precedent because unintended outcomes are always unforeseen and unintended.
Secondly, the comparison that you draw with the INTO or other actual unions doesn't work. Teachers are not compelled to be members of the INTO, they have to sign up and they can leave at any time. People regularly do leave Trade Unions when they adopt positions that they disagree with.

1) You are the one setting a precendent that claiming the union should not be allowed to take a stance in important political issues when the need arises or when it directly effects the lives/welfare of its students. Like I said any issue can come up down the line and I think the students themselves should be allowed to decide for themselves what stance they want to take. Not have a blanket policy of saying the Union can't take a stance.

2) You are right, people can leave some Trade Unions, that is their prerogative, that doesn't negate the fact of how any union works. Yes, all students are automatically members of this union when they come here - but that doesn't mean you don't follow standard procedures of said union to determine it's policy on behalf of what it's students want. Students as a group don't have the opportunity to join any other Unions. This is their sole representative body

I guess it's just a fundamental difference of opinion. This is how unions and representation work. We can still provide forums within UL for debate to be had (they just did), but the Union which does represents the views of the students should have the ability to take a stance on any issue, again whether that is for, against or neutral. If you can provide me with an example of any representative organisation/union of this nature that operates differently and satisfies the views of every single one of their members, be it in day to day running of said union or policy, I am genuinely open to hearing about it.

Ave Sodalis · 26-02-2015 4:01pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

One man's logic is another man's insanity. VERY dangerous to go down that route.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy it passed, voted for it. But to be quite honest I was a little disappointed in how some of the people who were speaking against the motion were treated. It felt like they were almost being derided when they actually had a really valid point.

I mean, let's take the polls as gospel and that they are accurate to the UL population. That puts the Yes side in the referendum at ~75%. So you could say this decision was a no brainer as the majority wanted it. But does it set a precedent for the SU getting involved in political issues in future? Let's say an abortion referendum comes about, say at another UGM a motion like this passes with a 51% majority. Do we want the SU to risk alienating 49% of students? Or would it be better for the SU's stance to be "We're not taking a stance. Our members can make up their own minds." on all issues?

Sorry, that's probably a garbled mess but I hope what I mean makes some sense.

I think that's nearly over complicating things. The way I see it is even if the majority were in favour of a no stance, unless that stance had a valid reason and argument behind it, the SU shouldn't support it. I wasn't there so I don't know how people were treated and I had hoped that all sides got a say but thus far, I've yet to hear a valid and well thought out reason for voting no (and I've heard quite a few) and as a result, I don't believe people views should be represented unless they can come up with a good reason for holding them. Especially when it affects other people.

Should the SU get involved at all? I dunno. I haven't really thought about it so not really able to comment.

ciaranmacs · 26-02-2015 4:07pm

If anyone sees a HTC phone with a red back in the area of the venus labs please let me know. thanks!

Precious flower · 26-02-2015 4:20pm

Yo, any post-FYP students 'ere? What's the deal with getting it bound on campus? Will they print it out and bind it for me or will I have to print it out myself? Do I have to have it converted into a special format or can I just have it on a USB in word document format? Also where do you get the front sheet with the UL logo and all that jazz? Thank you and good night!

wnolan1992 · 26-02-2015 4:28pm

sup_dude wrote: »

I think that's nearly over complicating things. The way I see it is even if the majority were in favour of a no stance, unless that stance had a valid reason and argument behind it, the SU shouldn't support it. I wasn't there so I don't know how people were treated and I had hoped that all sides got a say but thus far, I've yet to hear a valid and well thought out reason for voting no (and I've heard quite a few) and as a result, I don't believe people views should be represented unless they can come up with a good reason for holding them. Especially when it affects other people.

Should the SU get involved at all? I dunno. I haven't really thought about it so not really able to comment.

Who in the SU gets to decide if they're good reasons worth representing or not?

sibby · 26-02-2015 4:31pm

Precious flower wrote: »

Yo, any post-FYP students 'ere? What's the deal with getting it bound on campus? Will they print it out and bind it for me or will I have to print it out myself? Do I have to have it converted into a special format or can I just have it on a USB in word document format? Also where do you get the front sheet with the UL logo and all that jazz? Thank you and good night!

Last year for mine I went to the print room with the file on my usb and they told me to email it to them (because they were busy). They then printed it out and bound it for me. I'd say just go down there with it on a usb and ask them what they want you to do.

Official bitch about daily life in UL

Comments