Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 12-10-2017 04:53PM

Grayson wrote: »

It's been in the booklet for years and no-one batted an eyelid. The same with loads of other Student Unions. There was feck all risk.

That "sure it's grand, we've been doing it for year" attitude is a good contributor to how messed up some things are (Health, education, tax, etc). It's not a reason to continue doing it.

Although she is doing the "right" thing, I think her decision has been strongly influenced by her personal opinions.

Jayop · 12-10-2017 04:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmmm, I was obviously referring to whether laws were considered "nice" or not.

I see you've jumped to saying I am now equating homosexuality with paedophilia in a moral sense!

I think the only response is laughter at just how het up you are...:D Anyway, let's try not to bring in the Orange Order and get back to UCD SU.

Throwing that word in there is standard muddying the waters. Easy to see what's going on.

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 04:54PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

This intentionally acting dumb lark, its getting boring.

Nice to see you posting rather than just the usual thanking of Billy, which is fine as you always do this and always takes a stand against me

But then you actually argued nothing when you have posted, could have stuck to just thanking Billy who does bother to make an argument...

VinLieger · 12-10-2017 04:54PM

Current occurrings on the Repeal dail committee would indicate a definite two pronged strategy by the pro lifers on this, ronan mullen coming out saying how they are being mocked also complaining that they shouldnt be hearing from pro-choice groups at all.

The timings of both issues are too lined up for this to be a coincidence.

sunshine and showers · 12-10-2017 04:57PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I suspect there would very much have been an issue. Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree about your conjecture...even if you insist that your guesswork about what may have happened should get really through to people...:D

wasn't guess work. It was based on what is being reported in the newspapers, as well as the official executive committee meetings.

Billy86 · 12-10-2017 04:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Was she to defer on having the SU operate within the law?

Yes, she was. Because the legal issue was to do with exactly she said she would not get involved in, and yet not only did she do the exact opposite by overruling those she had a mandate to refer to, but given it apparently was being published for years in the booklet and that the legal advise was headed 'RE:' meaning it was a reply, there's a strong chance she actually went out of her way to do this despite it being completely against what she ran on.

So yes, she absolutely was to defer issues like this to the rest of the SU.

Grayson · 12-10-2017 04:58PM

Katherine Shapely Lanyard wrote: »

That "sure it's grand, we've been doing it for year" attitude is a good contributor to how messed up some things are (Health, education, tax, etc). It's not a reason to continue doing it.

Although she is doing the "right" thing, I think her decision has been strongly influenced by her personal opinions.

The fact that they've been doing it for years has nothing to do with the ethics of it, it's how likely they were to be fined for having it in it. The laws governing it are 22 years old and in that time they haven't been charged or fined so there's very little likelihood of it happening now.

Also, comparing it with a change resistant public service isn't fair. To make that comparison fair you'd have to demonstrate how it would be better for them to do something different.

Grayson · 12-10-2017 05:01PM

Both of these are from the facebook page to impeach her. It's the main arguments against her.

22406096_730131843853271_4784479618943332210_n.png?oh=e46ad79933b7c677797ccbeb6282780e&oe=5A3ECE0D

22406096_730131843853271_4784479618943332210_n.png?oh=e46ad79933b7c677797ccbeb6282780e&oe=5A3ECE0D

22405448_730131893853266_5844078358431400715_n.png?oh=2f471fcc1c1a6345234a447b2c5fdb70&oe=5A6E3E51

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 05:01PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, she was. Because the legal issue was to do with exactly she said she would not get involved in, and yet not only did she do the exact opposite by overruling those she had a mandate to refer to, but given it apparently was being published for years in the booklet and that the legal advise was headed 'RE:' meaning it was a reply, there's a strong chance she actually went out of her way to do this despite it being completely against what she ran on.

So yes, she absolutely was to defer issues like this to the rest of the SU.

The thing is the legal advice would not have changed, and after deferral if nothing had changed, she could have argued the SU was putting her into an untenable position if she didn't have the power to make the changes to make the abortion advice part of the book legal.
What she did was change it to where to go for advice on abortion. She in this case didn't show a bias on the issue.

Fr_Dougal · 12-10-2017 05:03PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, she was. Because the legal issue was to do with exactly she said she would not get involved in, and yet not only did she do the exact opposite by overruling those she had a mandate to refer to, but given it apparently was being published for years in the booklet and that the legal advise was headed 'RE:' meaning it was a reply, there's a strong chance she actually went out of her way to do this despite it being completely against what she ran on.

So yes, she absolutely was to defer issues like this to the rest of the SU.

It was nothing to do with *legal issues*. Her family are directors and active members of the Iona Institute, she was furthering her own agenda and that of mammy, daddy and uncles and aunts.

We're not living in the Dark Ages, women have a right to the information that this nitwit censored.

She should do decent thing and resign.

Billy86 · 12-10-2017 05:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I asked 3 or 4 times for an exact description of what she agreed to do.

A lot of posters who seem to know say she agreed not to change the SU position. Which is not one and the same.

It may have been answered already, but is there a link to her promise in this regard?

Posted it up earlier, it essentially boils down to delegating any issues relating to this yet she failed to do so.

Graduate Officer Niall Torris told Independent.ie that students feel "outraged" by Ms Ascough's actions.

"Katie's campaign promise that she had researched and that she would be able to delegate any issues relating to choice and repeal and that it could be done. There are a few questions there from the students on whether money is being spent prudently and are core election promises being upheld.

Jayop · 12-10-2017 05:05PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is the legal advice would not have changed, and after deferral if nothing had changed, she could have argued the SU was putting her into an untenable position if she didn't have the power to make the changes to make the abortion advice part of the book legal.
What she did was change it to where to go for advice on abortion. She in this case didn't show a bias on the issue.

That post above claims she was given alternative legal advice but of course she choose to stick with the advice that supported her already bias views.

12-10-2017 05:06PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is the legal advice would not have changed, and after deferral if nothing had changed, she could have argued the SU was putting her into an untenable position if she didn't have the power to make the changes to make the abortion advice part of the book legal.
What she did was change it to where to go for advice on abortion. She in this case didn't show a bias on the issue.

Gwan- what other existing and established items relating to SU activities did she feel the urgent need to get legal advice on since election?

Gwan

WinnyThePoo · 12-10-2017 05:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Nice to see you posting rather than just the usual thanking of Billy, which is fine as you always do this and always takes a stand against me
But then you actually argued nothing when you have posted, could have stuck to just thanking Billy who does bother to make an argument...

Why do worry about people thanking. I agree with Billy. Take that up with owners of the site, if you disagree with the thank button.

Again, you know exactly why people want to impeach her. She lied.

Billy86 · 12-10-2017 05:12PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is the legal advice would not have changed, and after deferral if nothing had changed, she could have argued the SU was putting her into an untenable position if she didn't have the power to make the changes to make the abortion advice part of the book legal.
What she did was change it to where to go for advice on abortion. She in this case didn't show a bias on the issue.

The legal advise would likely not have been sought, as it has been published there for 22 years. Why did she run on not getting involved in any of these matters and then go straight to emailing lawyers about these exact matters?

You yourself admit she got involved in something she literally ran on not getting involved in, and was mandated to defer to colleagues. These colleague were against any decision to make the changes, and she did so anyway. That is an absolutely direct and intentional, and quite possibly premeditated/planned, attempt to undermine her own mandate.

And yes, I completely agree that she could have considered her position untenable and resigned - I've said that maybe north of a dozen times now.

Captain Obvious · 12-10-2017 05:14PM

Jayop wrote: »

Yes, I believe in a civil society it is right to break unjust laws, and comparing breaking laws outlawing homosexuality for example it to someone who's a pedophile is quite disgusting, but an age old tactic of people of that ilk.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/dup-minister-jim-wells-quits-after-gay-abuse-comments-controversy-31173893.html

You know when you're making similar comparisons to Jim ****ing Wells you're on the wrong side of a debate.

So you think she was right to break whatever rule she is supposed to have broken if she thought it was unjust?

....... · 12-10-2017 05:21PM

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 12-10-2017 05:22PM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

It was nothing to do with *legal issues*. Her family are directors and active members of the Iona Institute, she was furthering her own agenda and that of mammy, daddy and uncles and aunts.

We're not living in the Dark Ages, women have a right to the information that this nitwit censored.

She should do decent thing and resign.

Oh yeah, I'd be fully suspicious of that too, but the 'legal reasons' excuse some are clinging to doesn't wash either since she still there had been no repercussions in the 22 years prior to publishing this info (which along with the legal advice being a reply to an email makes it very curious if she went to seek out that advise herself), given her options at that point were: a) still defer as was her mandate, or b) resign if she felt it made her position untenable.

pilly · 12-10-2017 05:23PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you think she was right to break whatever rule she is supposed to have broken if she thought it was unjust?

Of course she has, and the students have the right to remove her from her position because of it. Simple really.

Captain Obvious · 12-10-2017 05:23PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh yeah, I'd be fully suspicious of that too, but the 'legal reasons' excuse some are clinging to doesn't wash either since she still there had been no repercussions in the 22 years prior to publishing this info (which along with the legal advice being a reply to an email makes it very curious if she went to seek out that advise herself), given her options at that point were: a) still defer as was her mandate, or b) resign if she felt it made her position untenable.

How many criminal complaints have been made about the content in the last 22 years? How many do you think will be made if it comes back? Keeping in mind this law has already been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Captain Obvious · 12-10-2017 05:25PM

pilly wrote: »

Of course she has, and the students have the right to remove her from her position because of it. Simple really.

Ok, but again I come back to the unanswered question. What rule did she breach in order to be impeached?

....... · 12-10-2017 05:26PM

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger · 12-10-2017 05:27PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Ok, but again I come back to the unanswered question. What rule did she breach in order to be impeached?

Please link the rules of the UCDSU that say she needs to have broken a specific rule or law to be impeached.

kylith · 12-10-2017 05:27PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How many do you think will be made if it comes back?

One. By her.

Jayop · 12-10-2017 05:27PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you think she was right to break whatever rule she is supposed to have broken if she thought it was unjust?

Asked and answered.

pilly · 12-10-2017 05:30PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Ok, but again I come back to the unanswered question. What rule did she breach in order to be impeached?

It's late and I'm going home now, why don't you read the thread and the articles and find all this information out for yourself instead of expecting everyone on here to do your research for you.

Or are you just asking passive aggressive questions in order to make some point?

Obviously if the vote is going ahead then there is reason enough for her to be impeached. End of story.

Billy86 · 12-10-2017 05:34PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How many criminal complaints have been made about the content in the last 22 years? How many do you think will be made if it comes back? Keeping in mind this law has already been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

My assumption would be a very low number and I have never heard of a single one being acted upon as it was still being published up until this year. As this story has shown, had any complaints been acted upon it likely would have got a fair bit of media attention.

Some pro lifers, particularly those sympathetic to the likes of Iona, would likely be eager to jump in were it brought back but it doesn't appear that they would be acted upon.

Captain Obvious · 12-10-2017 05:37PM

kylith wrote: »

One. By her.

How optimistic.

Jayop wrote: »

Asked and answered.

Didn't see you answer that. Don't think it would have been much of an effort to refer back to your answer.

pilly wrote: »

It's late and I'm going home now, why don't you read the thread and the articles and find all this information out for yourself instead of expecting everyone on here to do your research for you.

Or are you just asking passive aggressive questions in order to make some point?

Obviously if the vote is going ahead then there is reason enough for her to be impeached. End of story.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger wrote: »

Please link the rules of the UCDSU that say she needs to have broken a specific rule or law to be impeached.

As nobody seems to know I went ahead and looked it up. It seems an impeachment referendum can be called if 3.5% of the membership petition for it. No rule need be broken. So it is just a popularity thing. She hasn't actually broken any rules.

RobertKK · 12-10-2017 05:38PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Why do worry about people thanking. I agree with Billy. Take that up with owners of the site, if you disagree with the thank button.

Again, you know exactly why people want to impeach her. She lied.

I said it was fine, just when you posted you had nothing of substance to post, just a personal attack.
I said the thanking was fine in my post, just when I saw you had replied to me it was just to have a go at me, and maybe you would have been better off to just stay thanking Billy as he at least makes an argument on the subject.

AudreyHepburn · 12-10-2017 05:46PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Ok, but again I come back to the unanswered question. What rule did she breach in order to be impeached?

None I think you’ll find.

I’ll say it again - I honestly believe that the only reason anyone wants her impeached is because she’s pro life.

It’s become almost a crime to some in this country to have an opinion other that of the pro abortion campaign.

Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

Comments