Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

scopper · 12-10-2017 03:03PM

Heh, I think we all know ya'll just want to impeach her for being pro-life.

Captain Obvious · 12-10-2017 03:09PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Says it all really for anyone still trying to dispute her election promise hasn't been broken.

Is the question not whether breaking an election promise is an impeachable act?

Billy86 · 12-10-2017 03:12PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Is the question not whether breaking an election promise is an impeachable act?

It probably depends on the university's own rules on it, but as the second petition to impeach her has been accepted it would probably have to be. I'm not sure if the first one failed due to a lack of signatures (that was enlarged for the second one) or a lack of justifiable reason to do so (which was amended on the second one), or possibly even something else, but it could explain why they needed to re-do it.

12-10-2017 03:15PM

Billy86 wrote: »

I'll bring you back to my earlier comment that you ignored - what would the reaction be if an anti-alcohol Muslim person became Taoiseach and ran on the basis of deferring issues such as alcohol laws to other members of government, only to ban it outright when in office because it can cause health issues that add to health care costs?

The point I made had to do with you picking up on some perceived difference between legal advice and a Solicitor telling someone what to do.

Nothing turns on it. It's a figure of speech.

Not sure what Muslims and alcohol have to do with the difference between "I was advised by my Solicitor" and "I was told by my Solicitor". However, to your analogy is flawed. To make it more like the situation, if the Government tried to put an ad for alcopops in a circular for kids, and a Muslim sought legal advice and was told/advised that it was illegal to distribute alcohol advertisements to kids, then they would be perfectly correct to pull the ad.

12-10-2017 03:19PM

B0jangles wrote: »

How dishonest? I'm making an analogy between the rights that black south africans were deprived of under apartheid with the rights Irish women are deprived of under the 8th amendment.

Re. the Apartheid line.

Abortion is often referred to as a modern "Holocaust" by pro life campaigners.

I can't say which really bad comparison is more or less valid. I think they're both pretty useless.

steddyeddy · 12-10-2017 03:23PM

Right... I don't agree with what she's done or her position, but UCD's SU have had far worse individuals involved in the past. I'd go as far as saying criminal behaviour. Don't worry mods, there won't be names.

groovyg · 12-10-2017 03:31PM

On the fb page somebody asked her why she left the information in about how to remove a car clamp considering its illegal to remove car clamps.

Billy86 · 12-10-2017 03:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The point I made had to do with you picking up on some perceived difference between legal advice and a Solicitor telling someone what to do.

Nothing turns on it. It's a figure of speech.

Which I would generally agree with except for the fact Robert then went on to say no matter who was SU president the exact same thing would have happened, basically implying she had (excuse the irony!) no choice in the matter, which is not true.

Not sure what Muslims and alcohol have to do with the difference between "I was advised by my Solicitor" and "I was told by my Solicitor". However, to your analogy is flawed. To make it more like the situation, if the Government tried to put an ad for alcopops in a circular for kids, and a Muslim sought legal advice and was told/advised that it was illegal to distribute alcohol advertisements to kids, then they would be perfectly correct to pull the ad.

- Here we have a SU president who people would have probably had reservations about due to her pro-life stance which was based on her religion.
- There we would have an Irish Taoiseach who people would probably have reservations about due to if he had an anti-alcohol stance based on his religion.

- Here we have that president allaying these concerns by promising to defer abortion issues to their peers.
- There we would have that Taoiseach allaying these concerns by promising to defer alcohol issues to their peers.

- Here we have a president that then completely went back on that mandate by not only failing to defer to her peers on the abortion issue, but actively overruling them on it.
- There we would have a Taoiseach that then completely went back on that mandate by not only failing to defer to her peers on the alcohol issue, but actively overruling them on it.

- Here we have a president claiming it was done on legal advise to avoid wasting money, when it would up costing more money to do so.
- There we would have a Taoiseach claiming it was done on legal advise to avoid wasting money, when it would up costing more money to do so.

- Here was have a president who broke their mandate on a very flimsy excuse when they should have stuck to their word or resigned.
- There we would have a president who broke their mandate on a very flimsy excuse when they should have stuck to their word or resigned.

If you think this is justifiable grounds for her breaking her mandate and going against the wishes of the majority of students because you reckon legal advise has to be followed, then you would also have to think the same of the Muslim Taoiseach banning alcohol because medical advise has to be followed. Either that or we're in agreement that she didn't have to take this legal advise and apply it to all against their will (just as the Muslim president wouldn't have to take the medical advise and apply it to all against their will) and as such in complete breach of her mandate. I'd fully support removing that Muslim Taoiseach from office if he did such a thing also.

The reason I brought up the analogy with regards to medical advise is literally because you decided to equate legal advise with medical advice:

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you argue that it is sensible to ignore medical advice because, well, it's only advice and sure doctors can't tell you what to do?

Grayson · 12-10-2017 03:34PM

groovyg wrote: »

On the fb page somebody asked her why she left the information in about how to remove a car clamp considering its illegal to remove car clamps.

Thing is, did she ask for legal advice on it?

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 03:36PM

Billy86 wrote: »

You're twisting yourself into embarrassing knots here after having called me dishonest with no basis that you're able to back up.

I said she has a history of being dishonest which is irrefutably true (is it Katie Ascough or Katie Martin we're on about by the way?), and so I would want to see her proof rather than take the word of a clearly dishonest person on face value. As I mentioned before, I would have thought learned your lesson about blindly believing point blank believing proven liars with no proof provided. But instead you're going around calling people looking for the proof dishonest.

You also said I was dishonest without any basis.

Billy86 wrote: »

Can I get those links to show the fines you mentioned and UCD SU being up for €4,000 per person for publishing this in years past now please?

Proven to be true, not dishonest.

Billy86 wrote: »

Fourth time now Robert... do you have a link to those €4,000 per person fines you were on about and UCDSU being fined before for them given they were publishing this prior?

The above was after a link had already been posted which said €4,000. But it didn't suit your argument, after all you had said:

Billy86 wrote: »

Again, taking the word of proven liar Katie Martin Ascough on the matter at face value without asking any questions. Not like those she and her family associate with have form for that or anything. How come these have never been incurred on UCDSU before can you tell us?

Today it was shown she was not the liar you called her, yet you keep on with this policy of calling people you really dislike as being dishonest which includes myself.
I have not told lies on this thread, I just gave my honest opinion.

You made it clear in the last quote your problem has more to do with her personal prolife opinion and that of her family as you chose to bring them into this as well.
Can we agree that her being prolife is a problem for you, and you would rather she was replaced with a prochoice SU president at UCD?

Jayop · 12-10-2017 03:40PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why do people seem to feel the need to invent such long-winded, hypothetical and irrelevant analogies, when the facts of this case are already sufficiently straightforward?

To equate this legislation to Apartheid is sensationally overwrought. Such an over-the-top parallell undermines your own argument. It looks as though you've run out of road with any relevant arguments, and are now appealing to imaginary anaologies that suit your narrative.

It's quite simple. The SU President took a decision to comply with the law in a democratic society, even at a financial cost to the Union. That was possibly a slightly zealous approach, but it doesn't justify this contrived outrage and keyboard hysteria.

Yet you see no problem with the much more OTT comparisons provided by someone you agree with, funny that.

RobertKK wrote: »

So it is ok to make personal choices on what laws to break?
People do this all the time with rape, murder, burglary, speeding and killing people.
We live in a civilised society where we don’t get to pick and choose which laws must be followed and which laws we can break if we think it is ok.

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 03:45PM

Jayop wrote: »

Yet you see no problem with the much more OTT comparisons provided by someone you agree with, funny that.

Someone might say going over the speed limit by 15kmph is no big deal, at certain speeds it can be the difference in injuring someone and killing them.
But a lot might view breaking the speeding limit as a minor transgression.

Laws are not made to be broken, they are there for a civilised society.

sunshine and showers · 12-10-2017 03:46PM

Grayson wrote: »

After reading both articles I have no idea what was going on with that. Negotiating a pro choice stand? And allowing pro choice reps to be elected? WTF are they on about?

I saw on one Facebook post that she apparently did not want UCD pro-choice to have a stand in the Freshers tent. Perhaps it's about that.

12-10-2017 03:47PM

Everyone currently in red herring mode

Her crew- "she's being sacked for being catholic! She had to act on the legal advice" Red herring. She's being impeached under due process for the perception that she is allowing her personal views (which are at odds with the ethos of her org) to influence her performance.

Other crew- "her legal advice is bad! The expense is justification for getting rid of her" Red herring. We don't care really. Right, wrong, necessary or not, the legal advice is a clear attempt to get the end result she wanted despite her election campaign assurances.

Nobody really believes she had legal concerns, or at least nobody believes it's a coincidence that this was something that was all of a sudden a big problem given its run every year until now. Nobody really believes that the 8k expense is the issue.

The issue is her obvious backdoor campaign to become an Iona SU president. That won't wash and away she goes. She should have run honestly and taken her beating at the polls.

Everything else is just fodder for already entrenched sides.

Billy86 · 12-10-2017 03:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You also said I was dishonest without any basis.

Proven to be true, not dishonest.

The above was after a link had already been posted which said €4,000. But it didn't suit your argument, after all you had said:

You do realise neither of those posts you quoted said you were dishonest, correct? I have explicitly pointed out where you are not being honest in the posts where I have said as much, odd you didn't use one of those.

Today it was shown she was not the liar you called her, yet you keep on with this policy of calling people you really dislike as being dishonest which includes myself.
I have not told lies on this thread, I just gave my honest opinion.

Today it was shown she did get legal advise which stated up to €4,000. Today did not show she is not a liar - her direct lie is the reason the impeachment process is underway. She has also given fake names when speaking on camera to push her agenda before - again lying. She is a proven liar, it's not up for debate.

Claiming the exact same thing would have happened regardless of who was SU president when the other members were clearly in opposition to this and the booklets had already been printed (not to mention UCD doing very similar in the past with contraception laws etc), as well as the fact that the info that apparently has been printed in them for years, is very much being dishonest.

You made it clear in the last quote your problem has more to do with her personal prolife opinion and that of her family as you chose to bring them into this as well.
Can we agree that her being prolife is a problem for you, and you would rather she was replaced with a prochoice SU president at UCD?

I made it clear my problem has to do with her showing dishonesty - something that is endemic in the likes of the Iona Institute. Never have I said I have an issue with her being pro-life, you're just you're reaching for the sky and digging your own hole at the same time here because I'm not even entirely pro-choice myself.

I've got no issue with her being pro life at all. Just like the students who voted her in don't. I have an issue with her saying she will defer such issues to the SU and then point blank lying on it by turning around and doing the complete opposite. Just like the students who voted her in do. It's very, very basic stuff.

Jayop · 12-10-2017 03:52PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Someone might say going over the speed limit by 15kmph is no big deal, at certain speeds it can be the difference in injuring someone and killing them.
But a lot might view breaking the speeding limit as a minor transgression.

Laws are not made to be broken, they are there for a civilised society.

Someone might say that certain laws such as disobeying apartheid, disobeying rules concerning civil rights violations, disobeying rules regarding provision of contraception, disobeying rules regarding anti-homosexual laws should be broke.

Ireland was no more or less "a civilised society" in 1992 than it is now. Should homosexual people have been punished then for breaking the law covering that?

To say that the law is in place and we should all obey like good little lemmings is a joke.

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 03:54PM

Billy86 wrote: »

You do realise neither of those posts you quoted said you were dishonest, correct? I have explicitly pointed out where you are not being honest in the posts where I have said as much, odd you didn't use one of those.

Today it was shown she did get legal advise which stated up to €4,000. Today did not show she is not a liar - her direct lie is the reason the impeachment process is underway. She has also given fake names when speaking on camera to push her agenda before - again lying. She is a proven liar, it's not up for debate.

Claiming the exact same thing would have happened regardless of who was SU president when the other members were clearly in opposition to this and the booklets had already been printed (not to mention UCD doing very similar in the past with contraception laws etc), as well as the fact that the info that apparently has been printed in them for years, is very much being dishonest.

I made it clear my problem has to do with her showing dishonesty - something that is endemic in the likes of the Iona Institute. Never have I said I have an issue with her being pro-life, you're just you're reaching for the sky and digging your own hole at the same time here because I'm not even entirely pro-choice myself.

I've got no issue with her being pro life at all. Just like the students who voted her in don't. I have an issue with her saying she will defer such issues to the SU and then point blank lying on it by turning around and doing the complete opposite. Just like the students who voted her in do. It's very, very basic stuff.

I just think your reading of who is dishonest and who is not is operating like a broken radar.

The abortion information thing had nothing to do with repeal the 8th, and abortion information was not removed in the republished book, but was done in a way that was legal.
So all she was doing was dealing with a illegality in this case, which was on legal advice.
She did not nothing that removed abortion information, just made it legal. One might say doing a job her predecessors hadn't done properly by all accounts if they hadn't fixed it to make it legal.
If a prochoice president had done this, there would be no work over it.

12-10-2017 03:57PM

groovyg wrote: »

On the fb page somebody asked her why she left the information in about how to remove a car clamp considering its illegal to remove car clamps.

Oh God, not the car clamp thing again.

It is illegal to remove them, but it is not illegal to distribute information about their removal.

Grayson · 12-10-2017 03:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Someone might say going over the speed limit by 15kmph is no big deal, at certain speeds it can be the difference in injuring someone and killing them.
But a lot might view breaking the speeding limit as a minor transgression.

Laws are not made to be broken, they are there for a civilised society.

You also said

So it is ok to make personal choices on what laws to break?

That's the point of laws. We choose to follow them and if we don't we also acknowledge that there may be consequences.

In this case the SU had ignored that law for years with no negative side effects for them or anyone else. (There's still debate here as to whether or not it's illegal but let's assume that it is).

Breaking the law does not mean someone is doing a non ethical act. It doesn't mean that they are wrong. In the example you gave it's actually the moral thing to speed if someone life is in danger. If someone is bleeding out on your back seat than it makes sense to speed (within reason. No one's saying to plough down grafton st at speed).

In this case the SU had weighed up their options and had decided long ago that it was worth risking breaking the law to give students information that they might need in a crises.

Giving someone this information doesn't hurt anyone and may actually help people.

It's a stance that they had for years, like many other SU's and they had never been charged with anything.

So from an ethical point of view what they did was ok and from a legal point of view there's feck all risk.

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 03:58PM

Jayop wrote: »

Someone might say that certain laws such as disobeying apartheid, disobeying rules concerning civil rights violations, disobeying rules regarding provision of contraception, disobeying rules regarding anti-homosexual laws should be broke.

Ireland was no more or less "a civilised society" in 1992 than it is now. Should homosexual people have been punished then for breaking the law covering that?

To say that the law is in place and we should all obey like good little lemmings is a joke.

We are talking about present day Irish law. Laws that are there to be followed today, not decades ago.

If everyone took your attitude on law, which is it is an a la carte law system. We would end up in a system of chaos.

Captain Obvious · 12-10-2017 03:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh God, not the car clamp thing again.

It is illegal to remove them, but it is not illegal to distribute information about their removal.

That's arguable

12-10-2017 04:00PM

Jayop wrote: »

Someone might say that certain laws such as disobeying apartheid, disobeying rules concerning civil rights violations, disobeying rules regarding provision of contraception, disobeying rules regarding anti-homosexual laws should be broke.

True. Some crazies will even say that paedophilia should be allowed.

But none of that is to say someone should be penalised for obeying the law in a country.

12-10-2017 04:03PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True. Some crazies will even say that paedophilia should be allowed.

But none of that is to say someone should be penalised for obeying the law in a country.

She's not being penalised by the state. The point is a bit skewed.

She's being impeached by an electorate for her actions.

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 04:04PM

Grayson wrote: »

You also said

That's the point of laws. We choose to follow them and if we don't we also acknowledge that there may be consequences.

In this case the SU had ignored that law for years with no negative side effects for them or anyone else. (There's still debate here as to whether or not it's illegal but let's assume that it is).

Breaking the law does not mean someone is doing a non ethical act. It doesn't mean that they are wrong. In the example you gave it's actually the moral thing to speed if someone life is in danger. If someone is bleeding out on your back seat than it makes sense to speed (within reason. No one's saying to plough down grafton st at speed).

In this case the SU had weighed up their options and had decided long ago that it was worth risking breaking the law to give students information that they might need in a crises.

Giving someone this information doesn't hurt anyone and may actually help people.

It's a stance that they had for years, like many other SU's and they had never been charged with anything.

So from an ethical point of view what they did was ok and from a legal point of view there's feck all risk.

The reason for law is to provide a civilised society and penalty if not followed.

It is amazing that yesterday people were crying over the €7,000 it cost to reprint the books, but think it was right to turn a bling eye to the law and leave the SU at risk of far higher costs from both fines and legal costs.

We are coming up to a referendum, this subject is going to be a messy one, why have a 'we are opened to being sued for breaking the law' and then decide it is the best policy not to close the possibility?
Better to leave the SU open to the possibility of tens of thousands in fines and legal costs?

Jayop · 12-10-2017 04:04PM

RobertKK wrote: »

We are talking about present day Irish law. Laws that are there to be followed today, not decades ago.

If everyone took your attitude on law, which is it is an a la carte law system. We would end up in a system of chaos.

Bull****. What makes the laws today so rightious that we should all be so obedient to them when the law in 1993 was clearly wrong and someone could be locked up for being gay?

How about in 1992 where it was also against the law for DCU SU to be providing contraception solutions to it's students? Was that also wrong? Dod that result in chaos?

You can't pick and choose an arbitrary date and say now we're a civilised society so everyone should obey every law.

Jayop · 12-10-2017 04:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

True. Some crazies will even say that paedophilia should be allowed.

But none of that is to say someone should be penalised for obeying the law in a country.

Ah here. Murder, rape and now pedophilia??

Maybe throw in genocide and anything else that pops into your head too. :rolleyes:

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 04:08PM

About car clamping.

I can buy this https://www.amazon.com/Oanon-Wheel-Clamp-Trailers-Secure/dp/B06XBXZ5JW/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1507820798&sr=8-13&keywords=car+tire+clamp

Clamp someone elses car, is it illegal for the car owner to remove the clamp?

Jayop · 12-10-2017 04:10PM

RobertKK wrote: »

About car clamping.

I can buy this https://www.amazon.com/Oanon-Wheel-Clamp-Trailers-Secure/dp/B06XBXZ5JW/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1507820798&sr=8-13&keywords=car+tire+clamp

Clamp someone elses car, is it illegal for the car owner to remove the clamp?

Why not go get legal advice to suit your already preconceived idea of whether it's right or not and to suit your clear agenda?

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 04:10PM

Jayop wrote: »

Bull****. What makes the laws today so rightious that we should all be so obedient to them when the law in 1993 was clearly wrong and someone could be locked up for being gay?

How about in 1992 where it was also against the law for DCU SU to be providing contraception solutions to it's students? Was that also wrong? Dod that result in chaos?

You can't pick and choose an arbitrary date and say now we're a civilised society so everyone should obey every law.

We live in a democracy, we use that democracy to change laws.

It was a democratic decision that made homosexual acts legal in this country. We did not abandon laws and turn to anarchy to change the laws.

Jayop · 12-10-2017 04:11PM

RobertKK wrote: »

We live in a democracy, we use that democracy to change laws.

It was a democratic decision that made homosexual acts legal in this country. We did not abandon laws and turn to anarchy to change the laws.

So should people who broke the law prior to 1993 have been punished in accordance with the legislation if they broke it?

Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

Comments