Nominations be open!!

ninty9er

The runners and riders as rumoured so far for elections in Week 9

President
Mark Conway
Ruán Dillon McLoughlin
Eamonn T. Gardiner

DP Welfare
Tony Sheridan
Mike Toomey
Deirdre Wilson

VP Education
Aoife Finnerty
Emma Kerins
David Ryan
Huw Thomas

VP Campaigns and Services
Darragh Bourke
Fergal Dempsey

VP Communications
David Dolphin
Aoife Ní Raghallaigh


Names holding interest in one or more positions, but not yet linked to one or another.
Mark Conway
A.N Other
A.N Other

Outgoing officers cannot be discounted until close of nominations next Friday at 5
Those not seeking re-election by virtue of their presence on the Electoral and Referenda Board are Damien Cahill and Pa O'Brien

We'll also be spared chalk markings all over campus as there are more than 10 candidates meaning chalk is banned:D


This is looking to be a very interesting campaign. Add to that the little plebiscite that we're having (courtesy of moi) to gauge opinion on fee alternatives and we're hopefully looking at breaking the 20% turnout barrier.

sceptre

I edited the lists to put the names in alphabetical order. Purely out of my own sense of moral fairness, the guy you're marketing is first in alphabetical order anyway so it's not as though there was anything untoward about the list.

AN Other gets around, he's been playing football matches lately too.

rmacm

Hmmm only recognise 2 of those people....1 Skynetter and a boardsie.

Can I nominate Cthulhu for a position?

ergonomics

There are definitely two boardsies running that I can spot anyway :pac:

ninty9er

ergonomics wrote: »

There are definitely two boardsies running that I can spot anyway :pac:

And a third apparently, though I haven't yet figured out who it is!

Best of luck.

bluedolphin

ninty9er wrote: »

We'll also be spared chalk markings all over campus as there are more than 10 candidates meaning chalk is banned:D

Eh, POI: there are no candidates at all until 5pm on Friday!

ninty9er

bluedolphin wrote: »

Eh, POI: there are no candidates at all until 5pm on Friday!

Okay, okay...I've been told by more than 10 people that they are seeking nomination!

That better;)

ergonomics

Just thought I'd mention that I was talking to sceptre earlier and I happened to notice that he had both the President and Communications nomination form...

bazkennedy

ya he was seen in the SU courtyard brandishing the presidential form

ninty9er

Could our gracious overmod add Mark Conway to the list for President please and also Tony Sheridan for Welfare or so I believe.

sceptre

OK, unfortunately my flat has been broken into and I'm no longer really in the mood to be funny or ****-stirring so I can happily confirm that I'd rather eat my own feet than run for election at this particular point in time. I didn't start that particular rumour, though I was happy to give it short legs as I found it quite funny. And extra funny for me, thanks to the few people who took it seriously and offered me campaign ideas and time, I really appreciate it even though it was really a joke.

I do have a semi-rambled commentary on why I'd rather eat my own feet which I may post at some point as it is actually relevant to the election and what, you know, student leaders should be doing and all that. Also, I'm a little disappointed in the small number of people who assumed that anyone with a point of view on anything at the UGM must be running for election as they apparently couldn't understand the notion that anyone would do so unless it was to their own benefit. This, incidentally, is what's wrong with student politics in general etc etc - the concept of actual self-sacrifice as opposed to self-aggrandisement can't be understood by some, though happily this isn't true of all.

Anyhoo, may be a fun week. Hopefully ulvoteforme will be blogging it, even though they typically get it more wrong than right (for example when I ran for PPO they thought I was going to lose:)), I rather enjoy the input of the totally anonymous:pac: commentators.

As a side-note, now that our current full-time officers will be effectively swept away in a week or so even though they don't leave office until June, as a regular student who's seen more SU teams than most, some very good, some very bad over the years, I've been pleased with their work and they didn't set the building on fire. Still time for that I guess:D.

dyl10

I see two boardsies also

ninty9er

I'll leave it till tomorrow after the ERB meeting to start campigning here but just before I do

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!:D:D:D:D

sceptre

Did I hear right in hearing that there's an issue, disagreement or controversy about a particular nomination form declared as being a minute late?

kaimera

for example when I ran for PPO they thought I was going to lose

*cough*
not a chance with the help you got Vote 'S for seamus'

ergonomics

Yes, I can confirm that I have filed an objection that my opponent for Communications handed in his nomination form 5 minutes late. This was confirmed by security footage but the issue is on going.

onedoubleo

Hmmm, i know rules are there for a reason but surely having more people run for positions is better for the Union as a whole.
It will be interesting to hear how this one works out....
Anywho's best of luck to all those that are running

kaimera

ergonomics wrote: »

Yes, I can confirm that I have filed an objection that my opponent for Communications handed in his nomination form 5 minutes late. This was confirmed by security footage but the issue is on going.

good.

can't have a comms officer being late....if they are tardy with the app form, imagine what it would be like if they won

oppenheimer1

ergonomics wrote: »

Yes, I can confirm that I have filed an objection that my opponent for Communications handed in his nomination form 5 minutes late. This was confirmed by security footage but the issue is on going.

Is that not rather petty? Would it not be better that the electorate chose the winner, rather than a win by default?

klong

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is that not rather petty? Would it not be better that the electorate chose the winner, rather than a win by default?

Rules are there for a reason; if the other would-be communications officer really wanted to run, surely they'd have entered well ahead of the deadline. No sympathy from me, I'm afraid.

bluedolphin

Can the mods amend the first post with the final runners:

President
Mark Conway
Ruán Dillon McLoughlin
Eamonn Gardiner

DP/Welfare
No nominations. Nominations will open again on Monday at 9am. Forms can be picked up from the reception.

Education
David James Collison Ryan
Aoife Finnerty
Emma Kerins
Huw Thomas

Campaigns & Services
Darragh Bourke
Fergal Dempsey
Michelle Lawlor

Communications
Aoife Ni Raghallaigh is currently (as of close of business on Friday) the only confirmed candidate. However, another nomination form was handed in after 5pm from David Dolphin. The Electoral & Referenda will meet to discuss and decide on the issue on Monday.

ULPaddy

klong wrote: »

Rules are there for a reason; if the other would-be communications officer really wanted to run, surely they'd have entered well ahead of the deadline. No sympathy from me, I'm afraid.

Agreed! Though I do feel bad for him, he has but himself to blame. It shows an inability to keep to deadlines and carelessness to leave it till too late.

I'm all for fairness and punishment to be relative to offence, but I still say no, he shouldn't be allowed run if he wasn't in on time. A week was plenty of time to get the nomination completed and submitted. To reiterate KLONG, if he was serious you'd think he would have been in well in time for the close of nominations.

Congrats to all who did get there nominations in punctually and to quote a friend whom I told of the different candidates "Oh wow, that's interesting. It's gonna be an interesting election." Here's to that! :rolleyes:

ergonomics

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is that not rather petty? Would it not be better that the electorate chose the winner, rather than a win by default?

I can understand why you would think it was petty but the reason I objected was because I believe that if the rules are bent at the start of the election then they will be bent throughout the election and this is not fair on any candidate. As other posters have said, the nominations opened last Friday so there was plenty of time to get the form in, and everyone knew when nominations closed. I feel terrible for the trouble this has caused, but I still stand by my objection.

As far as I know David does not have an account on boards, so I will not be discussing this issue again here. It's not fair for me to be able to air my side, when he can't. I just wanted to post the facts of what happened before any rumours or speculation started. David has as much right to take issue with to my objection, as I did to object his nomination form being handed in late.

oppenheimer1

ULPaddy wrote: »

I'm all for fairness and punishment to be relative to offence, but I still say no, he shouldn't be allowed run if he wasn't in on time. A week was plenty of time to get the nomination completed and submitted. To reiterate KLONG, if he was serious you'd think he would have been in well in time for the close of nominations.

I think it would reflect badly on the union if he were excluded. It would be bad for democracy, there would be no real election or debate. Apart from breaking the rule there is no real reason he shouldn't be allowed to run, he hasn't gained an advantage as far as I can see by submitting late. Its not as if the ballot papers have been printed either.

Possibly he should be punished (maybe by not allowing his campaign to start until later in the week) but not excluded. Here there is a student that wishes to participate in the union... and isnt that what its all about, student participation, and getting students to want to participate.

BTW i am not involved with any campaign team

sceptre

bluedolphin wrote: »

Can the mods amend the first post with the final runners

Thanks for the list! As they're final runners, I put it in a new thread.

This thread is better served as a discussion on the nomination process or comments about people who didn't run or whatever isn't specifically to do with the declared, nominated and confirmed candidates, if people want that. If they don't the thread just fades away.

Discussion on the election and confirmed candidates now goes in the other thread please. I fully expect to have to move posts between the two threads, but it'd be cool if I didn't have to do that very often if at all.

kingkane

sceptre wrote: »

Runners at close of nominations on Friday 20 March as confirmed by bluedolphin. Elections will take place on Thursday 26 March. I'll edit in details of polling hours and stations when I get them.

Communications
Aoife Ni Raghallaigh is currently (as of close of business on Friday) the only confirmed candidate. However, another nomination form was handed in after 5pm from David Dolphin. The Electoral & Referenda will meet to discuss and decide on the issue on Monday.

Good luck to all candidates!

I think it would be better in the time honoured "Have I got news for you" tradition to say that in the above case that it is "alleged" that the nomination form was handed in late and that an objection was lodged, ruled on, and then the ruling retracted.

ninty9er

kingkane wrote: »

I think it would be better in the time honoured "Have I got news for you" tradition to say that in the above case that it is "alleged" that the nomination form was handed in late and that an objection was lodged, ruled on, and then the ruling retracted.

Not wanting to but in, and I'm offering no opinion on the matter as it would not be suitable for me to do so as a campaign manager for another candidates; the nomination was shown by CCTV to have been handed in after 5pm. The setting of 5pm as the deadline is the issue.

Can we leave this issue alone and maybe Sceptre or Petee could move both of these posts to the Nominations Thread.

thattequilagirl

I don't see why the matter shouldn't be discussed....?

ninty9er

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I don't see why the matter shouldn't be discussed....?

I never said that it shouldn't, I just said this is the wrong thread.

kingkane

ninty9er wrote: »

Not wanting to but in, and I'm offering no opinion on the matter as it would not be suitable for me to do so as a campaign manager for another candidates; the nomination was shown by CCTV to have been handed in after 5pm. The setting of 5pm as the deadline is the issue.

Can we leave this issue alone and maybe Sceptre or Petee could move both of these posts to the Nominations Thread.

If 5pm being the deadline is the issue and it turns out it shouldn't be 5pm then the form wouldn't be late and hence my reference to the alleged lateness would be accurate. It's all kind of circular.

I'm sure a mod will move this if they feel that it should be elsewhere, though this does impact on the campaigns as it leaves things hanging in abeyance for the moment. And it could well impact on the tone and nature of those campaigns should they arise.

ULPaddy

kingkane wrote: »

If 5pm being the deadline is the issue and it turns out it shouldn't be 5pm then the form wouldn't be late and hence my reference to the alleged lateness would be accurate. It's all kind of circular.

I am also a Campaign Manager for one of the candidates - though not 4 Communications.

According to the deadline of 5pm it was late and proven (by surveillance camera) as such. Seeing as this is an issue on which the ERB has final ruling I think the extensive discussion on varying interpretation of it being late or not serves only to fuel fueds.

I agree with Ninety9er in saying "I don't think this is the correct thread for this and the posts should be moved to the nominations thread".

sceptre

I can throw out my view if you like, with no "if... then" round the house viewing, though some of you won't like it.

bluedolphin

ULPaddy wrote: »

Seeing as this is an issue on which the ERB has final ruling

As it will ultimately boil down to a Constitutional issue, it will probably be the Commission of Arbitration and/or President that has the final ruling, as these are the bodies that have final interpretation of the Constitution.

kingkane

ULPaddy wrote: »

I am also a Campaign Manager for one of the candidates - though not 4 Communications.

According to the deadline of 5pm it was late and proven (by surveillance camera) as such. Seeing as this is an issue on which the ERB has final ruling I think the extensive discussion on varying interpretation of it being late or not serves only to fuel fueds.

I agree with Ninety9er in saying "I don't think this is the correct thread for this and the posts should be moved to the nominations thread".

But was the time as displayed on the surveillance camera available to those submitting and accepting the nominations? It would appear it wasn't and the only devices in the SU lobby that had time on them are two machines off to the side which had times as of Friday evening that didn't even agree with one another. And it's not clear whether they agreed with the time on the CCTV either. And it is too late to check that now.

The accepting of nominations in any election is down to the returning officer. He accepted it and I've been in a few elections down the years and I've never come across a situation where the authority of the returning officer in accepting a nomination has been challenged. If the returning officer accepted the nomination in good faith in what he, at that point in time, deemed to be a timely manner then retrospective invalidation of that acceptance because an external source indicates that it was in fact a couple of minutes later than he the returning officer then believed it to be is very strange. Neither the returning officer nor anyone else in the lobby had access to the speaking clock and they simply went with what they knew at the time to be the time. In almost all situations of this sort a decision made in good faith with the information available to the person at the time would be upheld. What next if someone's name on the nomination form isn't precisely as on their student registration will that lead to invalidation of the acceptance? There is typically a degree of latitude allowed up to the person in the role of returning officer as to the precision in such things.

In the normal run of things, most returning officers would have had the backing of the authorities for their decision to accept the nomination. That the ERB didn't appear to have the returning officer's back as to his decision to accept is also a bit more interventionist that would be the normal practice.

Of course all of this is mute in terms of the acceptance of the nomination if the deadline of 5pm was incorrect. However, it would be of significance come the running of the campaigns if the impartiality and intervention of the ERB is seen to be called into question.

And I would have to question the advice that the appellant was in receipt of that the nomination should be challenged on such grounds as no sabbatical officer who realistically want to be the George W. Bush of SU politics.

ninty9er

sceptre wrote: »

I can throw out my view if you like, with no "if... then" round the house viewing, though some of you won't like it.

Seeing as you've probably seen more elections round here than most....go ahead.

ninty9er

kingkane wrote: »

But was the time as displayed on the surveillance camera available to those submitting and accepting the nominations? It would appear it wasn't and the only devices in the SU lobby that had time on them are two machines off to the side which had times as of Friday evening that didn't even agree with one another. And it's not clear whether they agreed with the time on the CCTV either. And it is too late to check that now.

The accepting of nominations in any election is down to the returning officer. He accepted it and I've been in a few elections down the years and I've never come across a situation where the authority of the returning officer in accepting a nomination has been challenged. If the returning officer accepted the nomination in good faith in what he, at that point in time, deemed to be a timely manner then retrospective invalidation of that acceptance because an external source indicates that it was in fact a couple of minutes later than he the returning officer then believed it to be is very strange. Neither the returning officer nor anyone else in the lobby had access to the speaking clock and they simply went with what they knew at the time to be the time. In almost all situations of this sort a decision made in good faith with the information available to the person at the time would be upheld. What next if someone's name on the nomination form isn't precisely as on their student registration will that lead to invalidation of the acceptance? There is typically a degree of latitude allowed up to the person in the role of returning officer as to the precision in such things.

In the normal run of things, most returning officers would have had the backing of the authorities for their decision to accept the nomination. That the ERB didn't appear to have the returning officer's back as to his decision to accept is also a bit more interventionist that would be the normal practice.

Of course all of this is mute in terms of the acceptance of the nomination if the deadline of 5pm was incorrect. However, it would be of significance come the running of the campaigns if the impartiality and intervention of the ERB is seen to be called into question.

And I would have to question the advice that the appellant was in receipt of that the nomination should be challenged on such grounds as no sabbatical officer who realistically want to be the George W. Bush of SU politics.

This would also suggest that the full time executive has been elected by illegitimate elections since the constitution was enacted. Anywho, I spoke to the constitutions authors on Friday who reckon that 6pm was the constitutional deadline.

ULPaddy

kingkane wrote: »

And I would have to question the advice that the appellant was in receipt of that the nomination should be challenged on such grounds as no sabbatical officer who realistically want to be the George W. Bush of SU politics.

What!!!! ????

Sorry but either that fails to make complete sense or I simply no longer understand English. The punctuation is a nightmare, BlueDolphin's not going to be happy! :eek:

I'd be interesting in hearing your expansion on the reference to Bush, i.e. what is meant by it.

kingkane

ULPaddy wrote: »

What!!!! ????

Sorry but either that fails to make complete sense or I simply no longer understand English. The punctuation is a nightmare, BlueDolphin's not going to be happy! :eek:

I'd be interesting in hearing your expansion on the reference to Bush, i.e. what is meant by it.

I will say it again with some better punctuation and replacing the incorrect word "who" with the intended word "would".

I would have to question the advice that the appellant was in receipt of that the nomination should be challenged on such grounds as the time. No sabbatical officer would realistically want to be the George W. Bush of SU politics.

The reference to Bush is in regard to assuming office on the basis of a ruling and not on the basis of an electoral contest. You might recall the small matter of the US supreme court stopping the re-count in Florida and as a consequence deciding the 2000 Presidential election.

Blizzardman

Right, first of all, apologies, this is going to be a long one. (and i'm not involved in any of the campaigns). There's a few things I'm wondering about.

The reference to Bush is in regard to assuming office on the basis of a ruling and not on the basis of an electoral contest. You might recall the small matter of the US supreme court stopping the re-count in Florida and as a consequence deciding the 2000 Presidential election.

That doesn't really apply here though. This isn't a "He won, but we're not going to allow it." situation. This is a "He couldn't follow even the basic conditions outlined to him, and he's gone running to the constitution and been lucky enough to find something". I severely doubt that he knew the deadline was 6pm in the constitution, or didn't notice the 5pm deadline on his nomination material. This is just a case of screwing up that may get lucky.

Also, just wondering, but wasn't the 5pm deadline approved by Class Reps (both years)? Surely by saying that the candidate must be exempted from the rules set out by Class Reps (the representative voice of the students), you're saying that the voice of the students must be ignored? It's all well and good to say that "it should be up to the students to decide", but if they did ratify this time and date, then they already did decide? And now the candidate wants to go against this?

Also, just out of interest, if it is decided that the Class Reps mandate is to be ignored, does that mean all the current Sabbats must step down? Because, for all we know, there could have been other people who wanted to run against them and missed the deadline set by Class Reps Council.

There's no point having a Class Reps Council if you're just going to ignore their decisions. And there's no point saying "we want the students to decide" if you're going to ignore them when they do.

sceptre

Blizzardman wrote: »

Also, just out of interest, if it is decided that the Class Reps mandate is to be ignored, does that mean all the current Sabbats must step down?

That's a slippery slope argument I'm afraid. Oh, this isn't the boards.ie/Politics board. Well, it's still a slippery slope question.

The answer (which is no btw) is in here in a post I made on the ULSU boards today:

sceptre wrote:

Last year a decision was reached that blank nomination forms could only be picked up by candidates while SU reception was manned by day staff. Or between 9 to 5. On alternate days, only one of two full-time SU officers (education and PPO as de facto overseers of the nomination process (I as chair of the ERB, Alan as someone I rightly judged to have enough independence, ability and ethics to implement a fair process with me)) were aware of the precise number of forms that had gone out. That was done to ensure secrecy on the number and identities of potential candidates. Throughout the wek, candidates (and pretty much everyone else) were not only unaware of how many forms had been returned, but also how many forms had been collected.

At 5pm on the Friday last year, all forms had been accounted for, all returned. So, because on a procedural basis, forms couldn't be picked up after 5pm on that Friday and we had all possible forms returned completed, although at least the two of us (see above) were aware of the defined length of a university day and the requirements that we would have to fulfil as a result of the defined length of a university day (given that the constitution overrides all), with all forms returned, the declaration of candidates (and hence running candidates and unopposed candidates) on a practical basis could, and was, made by the Returning Officer after 5pm, think it was about 5:35 IIRC.

I'm correctable here as I wasn't there this year but I doubt class reps were asked to set the time for the close of nominations. They were certainly asked to approve/set the day of the election as they have to be. Given that the day of nominations close flows back from that decision on a fixed basis (that's the part where I'm not correctable)there wouldn't be any point in asking them to approve or disagree with that (that's opinion). There's no ignored mandate - class reps get to set/approve the date of elections and they did that.

kingkane

Blizzardman wrote: »

Right, first of all, apologies, this is going to be a long one. (and i'm not involved in any of the campaigns). There's a few things I'm wondering about.

That doesn't really apply here though. This isn't a "He won, but we're not going to allow it." situation. This is a "He couldn't follow even the basic conditions outlined to him, and he's gone running to the constitution and been lucky enough to find something". I severely doubt that he knew the deadline was 6pm in the constitution, or didn't notice the 5pm deadline on his nomination material. This is just a case of screwing up that may get lucky.

Also, just wondering, but wasn't the 5pm deadline approved by Class Reps (both years)? Surely by saying that the candidate must be exempted from the rules set out by Class Reps (the representative voice of the students), you're saying that the voice of the students must be ignored? It's all well and good to say that "it should be up to the students to decide", but if they did ratify this time and date, then they already did decide? And now the candidate wants to go against this?

Also, just out of interest, if it is decided that the Class Reps mandate is to be ignored, does that mean all the current Sabbats must step down? Because, for all we know, there could have been other people who wanted to run against them and missed the deadline set by Class Reps Council.

There's no point having a Class Reps Council if you're just going to ignore their decisions. And there's no point saying "we want the students to decide" if you're going to ignore them when they do.

Ah the voice of the students! In actuality the real sovereign voice of the students is heard via referendum or UGM (as is the case with the rest of the country) and the constitution being approved by one of those two methods trumps anything Class Reps might have voted for or not. Class reps can't decide to do something that conflicts with the constitution.

As for "This is a "He couldn't follow even the basic conditions outlined to him, and he's gone running to the constitution and been lucky enough to find something". I severely doubt that he knew the deadline was 6pm in the constitution, or didn't notice the 5pm deadline on his nomination material. This is just a case of screwing up that may get lucky."

It is a matter of dispute as to whether or not the basic conditions on the ground were or were not complied with. And your language is very pejorative, one might equally say that the objector couldn't face an election campaign and went running to the speaking clock to save themselves the hassle. If the returning officer thought it was still before the 5pm deadline when he accepted the nomination form than that should have been that. Making reference to the speaking clock and time that was not on display in the area is dubious, what next people standing at polling stations with their mobiles tuned into the speaking clock to close the polls?

My comparison with Bush is not meant to be an absolute comparison simply that it is better to win an election than all the other options.

thattequilagirl

sceptre wrote: »

I can throw out my view if you like, with no "if... then" round the house viewing, though some of you won't like it.

We're always interested in that sceptre!

bluedolphin wrote: »

As it will ultimately boil down to a Constitutional issue, it will probably be the Commission of Arbitration and/or President that has the final ruling, as these are the bodies that have final interpretation of the Constitution.

If Pa O'Brien can interpret 6 o'clock as 5 o'clock that'll be a turn up for the books!

In terms of Dave not handing the form in on time, I know he was in the building and as far as I know the issue was with the fact that the returning officer and other officials were running around trying to get stuff ready, I don't think it says anything negative about his character.

In terms of interests, I'll be campaigning in the education election but that doesn't impact on this.

rmacm

kingkane wrote: »

went running to the speaking clock to save themselves the hassle.

I hope you're using this as a metaphor of some manner....speaking clocks being a bit naff and all.

kingkane wrote: »

what next people standing at polling stations with their mobiles tuned into the speaking clock to close the polls?

Screw that, Chronos wouldn't stand for such inaccuracy. They need something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST-F1 sitting beside them....only then will they be certain of the time.

ninty9er

kingkane wrote: »

what next people standing at polling stations with their mobiles tuned into the speaking clock to close the polls?

I imagine the register of electors server will be shut down at 6pm to allow for accuracy across all stations.

kingkane

ninty9er wrote: »

I imagine the register of electors server will be shut down at 6pm to allow for accuracy across all stations.

Really? Because in a lot of places the local presiding officer has some discretion about keeping the polls open if there is a queue of people waiting to vote.

ninty9er

kingkane wrote: »

Really? Because in a lot of places the local presiding officer has some discretion about keeping the polls open if there is a queue of people waiting to vote.

I'm sure Paddy will be about on the day for the technicalities anyway. Though I see where you're coming from, it's a much similar argument to the one the nomination issue, except this time it's much more clear cut.

bluedolphin

Polls have to stay open for a minimum of ten hours; hence SU opening is 8am until at least 6pm. If there is a queue of voters, then I'm sure the ERB/Returning Officer will ask all candidates for their agreement on keeping the final polling station open or allowing it to close at 6. It's the same with the other stations - if they're very quiet, with agreement of all candidates, they will be closed earlier than 6. But the one in the SU will stay open until at least 6 to fulfill polling hours.

pinnyoshea

Do ye not spend enough time sitting around the SU discussing this sort of stuff. Whoever put in the objection needs to get a life. Discussing each others grammer and whether this should be split to one thread or another..... i mean come on guys. No wonder sweet FA gets done. Its like a microcosm of the Dail. I have no alliances in the elections. I read a lot of these threads but this is the first one Ive felt compelled to comment on.

bluedolphin

pinnyoshea wrote: »

...grammer...

And spelling too, because it's grammar.


I'm sorry; I really, really couldn't help myself.
:pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac:

Polar Ice

bluedolphin wrote: »

And spelling too, because it's grammar.


I'm sorry; I really, really couldn't help myself.
:pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac:

Bold bluedolphin
(I had to make sure I didn't leave out the blue part otherwise I might have been talking about someone else)

Mossin

pinnyoshea wrote: »

Do ye not spend enough time sitting around the SU discussing this sort of stuff. Whoever put in the objection needs to get a life. Discussing each others grammer and whether this should be split to one thread or another..... i mean come on guys. No wonder sweet FA gets done. Its like a microcosm of the Dail. I have no alliances in the elections. I read a lot of these threads but this is the first one Ive felt compelled to comment on.

This is not the Students Union, or the ULSU web forums. This is a public forum for UL students, therefore if the Mods feel the need to separate this into 2 threads, then so be it. I dont like to mess with the powers that be!

I have no affiliation with the SU, although I am supporting both Ruan and DJCR in their campaigns.

Discussing each others grammar is something that is done here a lot, just ask people! And in a couple of instances in this thread, the grammar has led to misinterpretations, so therefore it appears to be valid for once, and not just being the usual nonsense