Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

1…1415171920…38

Comments

  • #482
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    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.

    How can that be when she was elected to the office despite everyone knowing that she was pro-life.

    There was only an issue when she allowed her personal beliefs to interfere with the running of the SU.


  • #483
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I’ll say it again - I honestly believe that the only reason anyone wants her impeached is because she’s pro life..
    Pretty much nobody is going to take this clam even remotely serious until you can explain why the same students union voted her in in the first place, despite her being a pro lifer.


  • #484
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Pretty much nobody is going to take this clam even remotely serious until you can explain why the same students union voted her in in the first place, despite her being a pro lifer.

    Only takes 3.5% of the membership to call an impeachment referendum. How many voted her in?


  • #485
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Only takes 3.5% of the membership to call an impeachment referendum. How many voted her in?

    Dunno, but it takes 10% to vote in the actual referendum to vote her out.


  • #486
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Pretty much nobody is going to take this clam even remotely serious until you can explain why the same students union voted her in in the first place, despite her being a pro lifer.

    If I understand it right the SU voted her based on the knowledge that she would defer to them with regard to abortion or in other words that she would hide her own beliefs and accept their decisions regarding it.

    But they obviously still take issue with her stance or this wouldn’t be happening.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If I understand it right the SU voted her based on the knowledge that she would defer to them with regard to abortion or in other words that she would hide her own beliefs and accept their decisions regarding it.

    But they obviously still take issue with her stance or this wouldn’t be happening.

    No, she was elected on the basis not that she would hide he beliefs which she is free to hold, but that she would not allow her beliefs to influence SU policy and would defer to others on these matters.

    They take issue with the fact that she hasn't upheld this stance and has unilaterally decided to do this with the handbook, and she's accused of interfering with the selection of Pro-choice class reps.

    Quite simply, she's campaigned on a promise and has done the total opposite of that.


  • #488
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Jayop wrote: »
    No, she was elected on the basis not that she would hide he beliefs which she is free to hold, but that she would not allow her beliefs to influence SU policy and would defer to others on these matters.

    You have no idea why she was elected or how many people gave a monkeys about her promise.


  • #489
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Jayop wrote: »
    No, she was elected on the basis not that she would hide he beliefs which she is free to hold, but that she would not allow her beliefs to influence SU policy and would defer to others on these matters.

    They take issue with the fact that she hasn't upheld this stance and has unilaterally decided to do this with the handbook, and she's accused of interfering with the selection of Pro-choice class reps.

    Quite simply, she's campaigned on a promise and has done the total opposite of that.

    But she’s hasn’t - she simply edited the handbook so that it stays within the bounds of the law.

    She hasn’t stopped anyone from being pro choice or pro abortion, she hasn’t prevented anyone from seeking one nor has she stopped anyone looking for and using the information that was in the handbook.

    We don’t get to choose which laws we obey and which we break just because we don’t agree with them.


  • #490
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If I understand it right the SU voted her based on the knowledge that she would defer to them with regard to abortion or in other words that she would hide her own beliefs and accept their decisions regarding it.

    But they obviously still take issue with her stance or this wouldn’t be happening.

    No, they take issue with her breaking the promise she made that your first paragraph outlines.


  • #491
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Presumably someone could yet make a complaint about the previous issues of the magazine? I'm guessing there is no statute of limitations on these matters? Perhaps someone familiar with the law could enlighten is.

    I wonder how many students actually read the book? Back in my day, SU literature was always filed under B for bin. The booklet is a waste of money anyway


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Billy86 wrote: »
    No, they take issue with her breaking the promise she made that your first paragraph outlines.

    Well that’s where you and I will never agree - she promised to defer to them, not break the law for them.

    So to my mind she’s done nothing wrong.

    All this is because of her pro life stance, nothing more as far as I am concerned.

    You can be sure that if she were pro choice or pro abortion and did the same no one would have a thing to say on it.


  • #493
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Only takes 3.5% of the membership to call an impeachment referendum. How many voted her in?
    Going by your maths, of UCD's 32,500 student body 1,431 (4.4%) voted her in and over 1,200 (3.7%) signed the impeachment petition.


  • #494
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    You have no idea why she was elected or how many people gave a monkeys about her promise.

    OK.

    The irony that Audrey posted the exact same claim that I made about why she was elected, yet you choose to have no qualms with that and Audrey then likes your post criticizing me.

    You guys need to have a quick meeting to up your game.


  • #495
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Well that’s where you and I will never agree - she promised to defer to them, not break the law for them.

    So to my mind she’s done nothing wrong.

    All this is because of her pro life stance, nothing more as far as I am concerned.

    You can be sure that if she were pro choice or pro abortion and did the same no one would have a thing to say on it.

    Fair enough, you're happy with elected reps making a promise and breaking it immediately after. You should be delighted with politics in Ireland so.


  • #496
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Going by your maths, of UCD's 32,500 student body 1,431 (4.4%) voted her in and over 1,200 (3.7%) signed the impeachment petition.

    Can you clarify where you got the 1431 figure from? I was looking for some source for the election results.
    Jayop wrote: »
    OK.

    The irony that Audrey posted the exact same claim that I made about why she was elected, yet you choose to have no qualms with that and Audrey then likes your post criticizing me.

    You guys need to have a quick meeting to up your game.

    I'm actually my own person. Do you privately agree positions with other posters or something? But again you deflect from the point made that you have no idea why people voted for her.


  • #497
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Well that’s where you and I will never agree - she promised to defer to them, not break the law for them.

    So to my mind she’s done nothing wrong.

    All this is because of her pro life stance, nothing more as far as I am concerned.

    You can be sure that if she were pro choice or pro abortion and did the same no one would have a thing to say on it.
    She didn't have to break any law, besides the fact that this info has been published for over 20 years with no legal repercussions she always had the option to step down. Instead, she broke her promise and mandate to defer any issues related to abortion or the 8th to her colleagues who were very clearly against her final decision.

    She kept a promise she either couldn't keep or given that she may well have gone seeking this legal advise herself despite her promise to not get involved in such matter, never intended to keep. Given that she tried to block other efforts relating to pro choice/pro life by the very people she had promised and was mandated to defer to on such matters, there's a very strong chance it was the latter.


  • #498
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Jayop wrote: »
    Fair enough, you're happy with elected reps making a promise and breaking it immediately after. You should be delighted with politics in Ireland so.

    Of course I'm not happy with that - but that's not what happened here.


  • #499
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Of course I'm not happy with that - but that's not what happened here.

    Though it is. You refusal to accept that, is on you. Know body else.


  • #500
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Can you clarify where you got the 1431 figure from? I was looking for some source for the election results.

    Here you go - http://www.universityobserver.ie/news/ucdsu-2017-election-results

    I was curious when they were also - she was only elected in March of this year (my guess being her role became active over the summer, e.g. at the end of the school year).


  • #501
    Red Alert
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,486 ✭✭✭Red Alert


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Ever hear of Google? If the SU are seen as gatekeepers of information then I worry!


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Of course I'm not happy with that - but that's not what happened here.

    Erm yes it is. Both by doing this and by trying to prevent the recruitment of pro-choice class reps. Both instances of breaking her original promise.

    Whether you accept that's what it is is up to you.


  • #503
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Presumably someone could yet make a complaint about the previous issues of the magazine? I'm guessing there is no statute of limitations on these matters? Perhaps someone familiar with the law could enlighten is.

    I wonder how many students actually read the book? Back in my day, SU literature was always filed under B for bin. The booklet is a waste of money anyway

    They could, but having been in publication for over 20 years I'm sure whoever complained would be far from the first as UCD has 32,500 students in it (before even getting into other people involved with the university). The fact no repercussions have occurred previously make this appear far from the black and white issue of legality some also are claiming it to be.


  • #504
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    pilly wrote: »

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

    No, the vote is going ahead because they could get 1200 students to sign the petition, about 4% of the voting population, at the second attempt- thats all really, no one knows how many of them actually care enough to vote on the issue. In the last SU election the turnout was about 10%-11%, and to be honest the 90% who didnt bother gives you a better feel for how little most students actually care about student politics


  • #505
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    tritium wrote:
    No, the vote is going ahead because they could get 1200 students to sign the petition, about 4% of the voting population, at the second attempt- thats all really, no one knows how many of them actually care enough to vote on the issue. In the last SU election the turnout was about 10%-11%, and to be honest the 90% who didnt bother gives you a better feel for how little most students actually care about student politics


    And yet boardsies seem to care an awful lot.


  • #506
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    pilly wrote: »
    And yet boardsies seem to care an awful lot.

    Well you certainly seem to.....


  • #507
    Here we go
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 286 ✭✭Here we go


    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.

    If there was a complaint who would get the conviction on there record ? Which may effect ones ability to travel to the states Canada Australia ? Or future job prospects


  • #508
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    tritium wrote: »
    Well you certainly seem to.....

    Erm, a little ironic given this was your 17th post on this thread.

    And yeah, it is an issue I care about a bit myself hence my posts on it.


  • #509
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Erm, a little ironic given this was your 17th post on this thread.

    And yeah, it is an issue I care about a bit myself hence my posts on it.

    To your 57......


  • #510
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Here we go wrote: »
    If there was a complaint who would get the conviction on there record ? Which may effect ones ability to travel to the states Canada Australia ? Or future job prospects
    Nobody, unless the complaint was actually successfully prosecuted which doesn't appear to have happened in the 20+ years prior of them publishing it. But had they ever been found to be in breach of the law and successfully prosecuted, all actively involved would be liable.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    tritium wrote: »
    To your 57......
    Yeah... that was a predictable response so I already answered in the post you just quoted - "And yeah, it is an issue I care about a bit myself hence my posts on it."


Advertisement