nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

[Deleted User]

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/second-petition-to-impeach-pro-life-ucd-student-president-katie-ascough-accepted/ar-AAthFMP?li=AAmb2oK&ocid=ientp

Wonder how much of it is motivated by a decision about an ad in some University publication...and how much is motivated by opposition to her own position on abortion. If the latter, it would seem a little...wrong.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

.......

This post has been deleted.

tritium

....... wrote: »

No, she is being railroaded for claiming she wouldnt interfere with the pro choice stance of the SU then immediately reneging on that, for costing the SU money unnecessarily and for imposing her own beliefs on the student body.

If she was worried about the legality of something in the magazine she would have removed other bits (such as how to remove a clamp). That she didnt says it all.

Removing an illegal article isn't interfering with their overall agenda, its complying with the law. Has she done anything else, which wasnt the necessary legal course to take, that indicates shes renaged on this? Btw the cost of any fine isnt the only risk the SU is exposed to- theres additional legal costs, reputational risk etc. Its not fair or accurate to say its a simple case of the fine is less than the reprint cost

As for the clamp item, is publishing an article about doing this illegal or just actually doing it? Is there clear legislation that prohibits such an article. If not then whatever reservation we may have about the article theres no issue with it

Lux23

Deleted User wrote: »

I doubt it. Certainly not aware of any.

I'm not in favour her stance. It just seems to me that if a person takes a position that the law must be complied with, even at some expense, they should not be penalised for it.

They why didn't she remove the section about cutting off a clamp which is also illegal? Her story stinks to high heaven.

[Deleted User]

tritium wrote: »

Removing an illegal article isn't interfering with their overall agenda, its complying with the law. Has she done anything else, which wasnt the necessary legal course to take, that indicates shes renaged on this? Btw the cost of any fine isnt the only risk the SU is exposed to- theres additional legal costs, reputational risk etc. Its not fair or accurate to say its a simple case of the fine is less than the reprint cost

There is also the fact that there would possibly be a conviction. It's not simply a question of 8k being more than 2k and so a bad move, a prosecution is not just about the monetary fine.

tritium

Lux23 wrote: »

They why didn't she remove the section about cutting off a clamp which is also illegal? Her story stinks to high heaven.

Is it illegal to publish an article about cutting off a clamp, as opposed to actually doing so. Is the article that appeared clearly in breach of any such legislation? Unless it is this is a complete red herring

Edit: given that boards.ie, a site known to be risk averse in the legal sense, has a number of threads discussing how to do this I would be surprised if this is the case

[Deleted User]

Lux23 wrote: »

They why didn't she remove the section about cutting off a clamp which is also illegal? Her story stinks to high heaven.

Because in fairness to her, I guess she may have no idea that removing a clamp is illegal. I think most people in this country are more...aware of the law on abortion than the law of criminal damage. And particularly someone like her who was involved in one of the issues.

gctest50

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Their next target is euthanasia ( just in case their current money racket comes to a halt )

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

Lux23 wrote:

They why didn't she remove the section about cutting off a clamp which is also illegal? Her story stinks to high heaven.

Can you point to the legislation that says its illegal to simply state information how to cut off a clamp?

Deleted User wrote:

There is also the fact that there would possibly be a conviction. It's not simply a question of 8k being more than 2k and so a bad move, a prosecution is not just about the monetary fine.

Up till this media storm, no one knew the SU were publishing the information in their newsletter. Now the vast is out of the bag, it'll be watched for next year.

Will a replacement SU president publish something illegal then?

minikin

The 'outrage' over the €8,000 re-print cost is also a bit rich given the absolutely disasterous mismanagement of finances by the students union in recent years...

It's also nice to see them actually paying print providers these days, commendably ethical behaviour!

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Because in fairness to her, I guess she may have no idea that removing a clamp is illegal. I think most people in this country are more...aware of the law on abortion than the law of criminal damage. And particularly someone like her who was involved in one of the issues.

Ah now, I'd wager that many more people would know that it's illegal to cut off a clamp than to be given certain sorts of information.

tritium

....... wrote: »

Meh.

She is an Iona Institute puppet who wants to restrict the lives, safety and rights of people in this country - on whatever the subject, abortion, gay marriage, etc...

Ive no time for such religious fundamentalism myself and hopefully the student body dont either.

So actually the right or wrong of the issue dont really matter to you. She doesnt align with your view so you would like her gone regardless of how thats achieved?

I suppose its honest at least, but its a very sinister view nonetheless.

The_Valeyard

So she wanted to remove something that could be legally dubious?

The cynic in me would think this is a ploy to remove a pro life SU president with a referendum coming up. Cant have young people not in the pro choice camp now can we!!!

gctest50

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's sad - she probably needs professional extraction and deprogramming

"I was an only child growing up in a remote area with no access to my friends." - Jaclyn Ascough

"We only let [ the children ] watch movies with a positive message.

And occasionally, as a treat,they will watch wildlife programmes with my mother."

http://bit.ly/2i6daOV

"positive message"

Sofiztikated

The_Valeyard wrote: »

So she wanted to remove something that could be legally dubious?

The cynic in me would think this is a ploy to remove a pro life SU president with a referendum coming up. Cant have young people not in the pro choice camp now can we!!!

She also said she would defer to other SU officers on pro choice matters, as the SU in question has a pro choice mandate.

She didn't do what she said she would.

elperello

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUuAbEkhY8

My father used to say that if he (Al Capone) had been born in Ireland he'd have died with the hunger.

Gatling

She should do the right thing ,

Resign ,

Apologise,

Id be looking at a different college too if I was her ,

The information she had redacted was actually lawful and actually included advice on pregnancy services too ,

Wonder who gave the legal advice because it was clearly wrong

The_Valeyard

Sofiztikated wrote: »

She also said she would defer to other SU officers on pro choice matters, as the SU in question has a pro choice mandate.

She didn't do what she said she would.

So what happens to memebers of the SU who are not pro choice? Just shut up and stay silent?

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is pretty much what I think of the entire equivocation of an article about cutting clamps and the provision of information on abortion. As Tritium has pointed out, the latter is regulated by legislation. Not sure what the issue is with information about cutting clamps, it hardly makes the publisher an accessory to clamp cutting.

WinnyThePoo

The_Valeyard wrote: »

So what happens to memebers of the SU who are not pro choice? Just shut up and stay silent?

I don't think you understand. She said she would defer responsibilities and not effect the su position.

kylith

The_Valeyard wrote: »

So what happens to memebers of the SU who are not pro choice? Just shut up and stay silent?

Yes, the same as anyone who is employed by a company or agency with a stated point of view that does not match their own. If I worked for a company that helped Asylum Seekers with their applications for residency but was personally of the opinion that all immigrants should be rounded up and sent back where they came from then I would have to keep my mouth shut or I'd soon be looking for a new job.

Stonedpilot

frag420 wrote: »

I get the impression you dont really know what naive means...or witchhunt!?

I get the impression you left school (at least English grammar) at 11. Don't not dont :rolleyes:.

Tip: If you try and flame someone on language or words try and at least have your spelling/grammar correct; if you don't ; you end up looking a bit silly pal.

gctest50

kylith wrote: »

Yes, the same as anyone who is employed by a company or agency with a stated point of view that does not match their own. If I worked for a company that helped Asylum Seekers with their applications for residency but was personally of the opinion that all immigrants should be rounded up and sent back where they came from then I would have to keep my mouth shut or I'd soon be looking for a new job.

It'd be more like you phoned Irish Ferries and booked and paid for a trip for 60 people back to Libya

alchemist33

kylith wrote: »

Yes, the same as anyone who is employed by a company or agency with a stated point of view that does not match their own. If I worked for a company that helped Asylum Seekers with their applications for residency but was personally of the opinion that all immigrants should be rounded up and sent back where they came from then I would have to keep my mouth shut or I'd soon be looking for a new job.

It has a stance to which prospective leaders must adhere to, or excuse themselves when a certain topic is discussed. Its meant to be a Students Union, not a pro choice lobby group.

[Deleted User]

I dunno, hotels cancelling meetings, posters cut down, SU activist threatened with impeachment...a cynic might think that the pro choice lobby may be getting versed in the dark arts in recent weeks.

The_Valeyard

kylith wrote: »

Yes, the same as anyone who is employed by a company or agency with a stated point of view that does not match their own. If I worked for a company that helped Asylum Seekers with their applications for residency but was personally of the opinion that all immigrants should be rounded up and sent back where they came from then I would have to keep my mouth shut or I'd soon be looking for a new job.

A Student Union is not a company. Its meant to represent the entire student body, diversity and all that.

The_Valeyard

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I don't think you understand. She said she would defer responsibilities and not effect the su position.

I dont understand why she had to defer?

Billy86

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Influential daddy if I am correct in the pro life and fundamentalist Christian circles, with a nice chunk of money to spend on getting her name* and face out there for elections.

*Her name today is Katie Ascough, but she has used fake names in the past too when pushing her position.

https://twitter.com/gochaela/status/779744422070145024?lang=en

Billy86

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd wager it very much was, and I would wager that the likes of Iona and Youth Defense who her daddy is very involved with (and who receive a lot of their funding from the real extremist end of the pro life movement in North America) played a very sizable role in this - I wouldn't be remotely surprised if her running for the SU position was initially someone else's plan.

Let's not forget 32,500 people attend UCD and we're expected to have an abortion referendum next summer. It's ...interesting... timing to start trying to censor any information on abortions and then making claims about it being "illegal" to give any such information that has been available for years.