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

UL pro life society ???

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    NoBSLies
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭NoBSLies


    Russellynx wrote: »
    The posters had a Su stamp on them

    That's really strange because I got a snap of the posters before they disappeared and there seemed to be no stamp on them. I'll double check the photos later but from memory alone I'm fairly certain there was no SU stamp.
    I also note that you have nothing to say about someone claiming to be a member accusing two fellow students of ripping down posters when he may have no actual proof behind the accusation.


  • Options
    #93
    Ginge Young
    Registered Users Posts: 271 ✭✭Ginge Young


    Don't know if this was the poster people were talking about, but found it in the C1 corridor. Unless I'm blind it has no stamp in which case it has no business being on the notice boards.

    Edit: Apologies for the size and image rotation >,<

    r7spef.jpg


  • Options
    #94
    Reiver
    Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Reiver


    Looks like little Russellynx might have been telling a few porkie pies. :pac:

    On a sidenote, is there a specific person with the job of removing it? Like a designated poster-puller-down patrol or do the cleaners or security just do it?


  • Options
    #95
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    Ginge Young wrote: »
    Don't know if this was the poster people were talking about, but found it in the C1 corridor. Unless I'm blind it has no stamp in which case it has no business being on the notice boards.

    I can tell you now, the SU don't care (at least communications officers didn't care/weren't able to do anything) and neither does security (security take down the posters).

    This is an issue that has been raised for the last 5 years about C&S not getting their posters stamped and then taking down other people's posters (so they can have a better spot on the notice-board).

    Back on topic. I notice an email from Paul Lee.


    Email from Paul Lee wrote:
    Dear Clubs & Society Committee’s
    I was asked immediately after the C&S Council Meeting to open up a discussion around the issue of the Life Society as some senior members of the Council expressed concern at the process – I know this is still topical and being discussed and so the discussion item is now live and this is my introductory post as I too need further clarity on how to manage this situation beyond the decision last week.
    The “Discussion” tab should be open to you as a committee member when you log in to UL Wolves website and you can simply post as you see fit when you open up the tab its not too difficult at all. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS and wish to post please let me know as all 500 committee members receiving this email should have the ability to offer views on any issue posted up (I added another comment to the Hustings discussion too), I am sure your “admin” should be able to approve that function if for any reason it is unavailable to you. Please note as well in general terms I am open to putting up discussions people feel are necessary as well Re C&S
    Life Society & Process for New Societies being approved
    “Last Tuesday the 11th of February 2014 at Council Meeting #2 of this Semester - a new piece of Clubs & Societies history was set. It is the first time we have ever put the idea of a new Society going on a 15 week trial to a vote. From memory the vote was 22 to 23 against the "UL Life Society" a society that promote the life and sanctity of the unborn. Controversial and certainly not everybodies opinion. From my point of view as the person managing clubs and societies there is now a grey and undefined area. If an entity satisfies the definition of a society and satisfies the pre-requisite steps they still have to be approved or more aptly now maybe "liked" by the members of the Clubs & Society Council.
    In the not too distant past we have had an Environmental Society that used to protest every year in Faslane in Scotland, a nuclear submarine facility, they also controversially ripped up GM crops in Cork - we have had a Sinn Féin Society that appeared on the front page of the Irish times tussling with Gardaí and also appeared on a number of other daily newspapers in a protest around extradition of a national member outside the four courts in Dublin. (and I know there are more but I cant remember them all off hand possibly even the former Irish Peace Society and their associated protests at Shannon Airport around the American Military stopover)
    In recent years I have expressions of interest from a Muslim Society, Chinese Society and a Saudi Arabian Society. In the last few weeks the government on a trade mission to Saudi Arabia were criticised for not raising issues on human rights while there - so my point is where is the start and end point on approving potential societies as people can easily create objections around their own personal beliefs as to why they should not be a society in UL? We had a Palestinian Society in the past too but based on the latest decision last week maybe an Israeli Society might not be approved now?
    Society Definition with regards to Clubs & Societies in UL
    "Societies are formed for a specific purpose, namely to campaign a certain ideal. Societies are seen as gathering places for cultural and/or intellectual advancement of institution members. The main distinction being drawn between a Club and Society is that a Club is ‘activity driven’ whereas a Society is ‘interest driven’"
    Please discuss?”
    IMPORTANT NOTE ON BEING ANONYMOUS ON DISCUSSION GROUP AS CERTAINLY PEOPLE MIGHT WANT TO AVAIL OF THIS OPTION MORE SO NOW GIVEN THE TOPIC JUST POSTED UP

    On the basis of recent posts around the discussion on hustings I have had Keith O’Neill our Webadmin hide entirely those choosing to post anonymously as the whole intention of anonymous posting was to allow the comfort of offering a view without being identified and that should apply even to me – which it now does -the only time we would ever request the anonymous post to be dealt by our web admin would be if it was inappropriate, racist or sexist in some way. Apologies for any inconvenience caused

    Regards

    Paul Lee
    Clubs and Societies Development Manager
    Bannisteoir Forbartha Clubanna & Cumann [/quote]


  • Options
    #96
    FamousSeamus
    Registered Users Posts: 126 ✭✭FamousSeamus


    Ya Paul Lee seems very upset by its defeat!! Personally I had no problem with them creating this society, if your pro-choice you could join and more than likely most people would have just ignored them bar a small few!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    FamousSeamus wrote: »
    Ya Paul Lee seems very upset by its defeat!! Personally I had no problem with them creating this society, if your pro-choice you could join and more than likely most people would have just ignored them bar a small few!!

    The issue is the precedented that it set.


  • Options
    #98
    Popoutman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Popoutman


    FamousSeamus wrote: »
    Ya Paul Lee seems very upset by its defeat!! Personally I had no problem with them creating this society, if your pro-choice you could join and more than likely most people would have just ignored them bar a small few!!

    That's the thing about democracy - the mob has spoken on this issue.
    From my many chats with the C&S people in the weeks coming up to this vote, there were genuine concerns with making sure that the process was correctly followed, and what the ramifications of a decision either way could be. It'll make for interesting reading on what people think.

    As it is now, the failed soc has no rights to poster on campus or to campaign on campus. Off-campus is perfectly fine within the standard littering and vandalism statutes, but as the UL buildings are private buildings, there are no "free-speech" laws that apply. It's not a public place after all, and some posters above here have forgotten that.


  • Options
    #99
    Popoutman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Popoutman


    Jester252 wrote: »
    The issue is the precedented that it set.

    And what exactly was the precedent that was set? Note - it's not a trick question.


  • Options
    #100
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Popoutman wrote: »
    And what exactly was the precedent that was set? Note - it's not a trick question.

    It's highlighted Pauls email but to answer your question.

    That a Soc that played by C&S rules was shot down by the C&S mob (including members in thread) because they weren't the "right" type of people. Does this mean that future C&S will now be required to be the "right" type of people.


  • Options
    #101
    Popoutman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Popoutman


    Jester252 wrote: »
    It's highlighted Pauls email but to answer your question.

    That a Soc that played by C&S rules was shot down by the C&S mob (including members in thread) because they weren't the "right" type of people. Does this mean that future C&S will now be required to be the "right" type of people.

    To put it simply you are not correct, and you have let your own bias get in the way of a useful answer. Your use of weasel language also gets in the way of any useful attempt to make a point.

    The only precedent that has been set is that an objection was raised on the floor that forced a vote, that resulted in a failure for the egroup under consideration to get to start trial period. That's it - there is nothing else to it from a procedural point of view.

    Nowhere (except in the minds of those that disagreed with the result) was there any mention of what the objection on the floor was, nor was there any description of why any votes were cast in either direction. Welcome to democracy done right! If you disagreed with the decision taken by the c&S committees, then, tough. Nothing can be done about the vote, as it was done correctly (and a lot of work was done to ensure that the procedures were followed as correctly as possible). There's no appeals procedure as there are no grounds for appeal - disagreement with the decision is no grounds for appeal. C&S committees exercised their responsibilities to their members by voting in the best interests of C&S. The fact a majority vote was reached ensures this by definition, whether you or I consider it to be so. Never forget the definition of Democracy - it's mob rule by definition. You've got to learn how to work with the mob instead of against the mob..

    There is one part of your post that I take real issue with. Nobody in C&S has cast any aspersions about whether the people in the soc were anything other than the nicest of people nor did anyone say that they weren't C&S material - and I take offence that you considered the members of the soc as not the right people for C&S. Their idea for a soc isn't the right thing for C&S but that should not reflect on the members, and it's unfortunate that you show you think that it does.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Popoutman wrote: »
    To put it simply you are not correct, and you have let your own bias get in the way of a useful answer. Your use of weasel language also gets in the way of any useful attempt to make a point.

    You might what to look in the mirror before you call anyone out on their bias mate
    Popoutman wrote: »
    My issues with this soc being set up are to do with the fact it's a group of people whose entire purpose is to foist their opinion down the throats of others, and nothing else.

    I'd feel the same way about an exclusively pro-choice soc as well. It's not the subject matter, it's the intent and purpose methodology that I have issue with.

    Nice jump to conclusion before the society was set up.
    Popoutman wrote: »
    Hopefully they are classified as a political society, as that has funding restrictions, which will curtail the possibilities.
    They won't get a budget for the first year of operation anyway, and I'll be voting against the funding if it comes up at C&S.

    Nice to see you already made up your mind for a potential future event
    Popoutman wrote: »
    Personally, I'm glad that this soc is not under the C&S umbrella, and I am happy that the prospecive soc is not allowed to poster or campaign on campus.

    Your true colours

    Maybe you should check your bias at the door instead of letting it leave a mark on C&S history.
    The only precedent that has been set is that an objection was raised on the floor that forced a vote, that resulted in a failure for the egroup under consideration to get to start trial period. That's it - there is nothing else to it from a procedural point of view.

    Not accord to Paul Lee and I'll take his word over a username on Boards.ie
    Nowhere (except in the minds of those that disagreed with the result) was there any mention of what the objection on the floor was, nor was there any description of why any votes were cast in either direction. Welcome to democracy done right! If you disagreed with the decision taken by the c&S committees, then, tough. Nothing can be done about the vote, as it was done correctly (and a lot of work was done to ensure that the procedures were followed as correctly as possible). There's no appeals procedure as there are no grounds for appeal - disagreement with the decision is no grounds for appeal.C&S committees exercised their responsibilities to their members by voting in the best interests of C&S. The fact a majority vote was reached ensures this by definition, whether you or I consider it to be so. Never forget the definition of Democracy - it's mob rule by definition. You've got to learn how to work with the mob instead of against the mob..

    If "democracy" was done right
    If an entity satisfies the definition of a society and satisfies the pre-requisite steps they still have to be approved or more aptly now maybe "liked" by the members of the Clubs & Society Council.
    so my point is where is the start and end point on approving potential societies as people can easily create objections around their own personal beliefs as to why they should not be a society in UL?

    explain than why the head guy has these issues?
    There is one part of your post that I take real issue with. Nobody in C&S has cast any aspersions about whether the people in the soc were anything other than the nicest of people nor did anyone say that they weren't C&S material - and I take offence that you considered the members of the soc as not the right people for C&S. Their idea for a soc isn't the right thing for C&S but that should not reflect on the members, and it's unfortunate that you show you think that it does.

    I never consider the member of Life soc not nice people or the wrong for C&S.

    The C&S mob did.

    They played by C&S rules but C&S took their ball and went home.

    Not a single objection was down to technical reason and if there was one than C&S council royally messed up
    entity satisfies the definition of a society and satisfies the pre-requisite steps.


  • Options
    #103
    Popoutman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Popoutman


    Jester252 wrote: »
    You might what to look in the mirror before you call anyone out on their bias mate
    And your point is what exactly? I'm perfectly aware of what my opinions are and what they are based on and I haven't tried to hide them and I'm not afraid of what you or people like you may think of me because of them. I also understand well the difference between what I may personally want, and what may be best for my clubs and my socs, the committees that I represent, and the students that I represent. Hence my voting how I did.
    Jester252 wrote: »
    Nice jump to conclusion before the society was set up.

    Was accurate based on the information I had at the time, which was provided directly to me by the soc's president - you don't get much better a first source than that. Of course he went on to try to clarify, but hey, it's an opinion, and a valid one, no matter how much you disagree with it. I probably had access to more current and better information to base that opinion on at that stage, (especially as you show you don't know how long the soc has been in formation) so I think your argument is a bit specious.

    Jester252 wrote: »
    Nice to see you already made up your mind for a potential future event
    I see that you weren't paying attention in the C&S meeting where the discussion was taking place. This is based entirely on the president's descriptions of the upcoming events. I'm not sure what you thought you heard that day (were you even there at the vote? I'll have to check the attendance and see..) but the vast majority of people there came away with the same impressions that I did, which may suggest that what you picked up may be an error.
    Jester252 wrote: »

    If "democracy" was done right
    Democracy was done right - unless you have an issue with the process? I don't see an issue with the process as it was followed that night. It was done by the book. What is your issue? Is it that you didn't agree with the decision? If that's the case that's unfortunate for you but just something that you have to live with as you don't get to change that decision, and the opportunity to have that decision taken again won't be coming for at least another year or so.
    Jester252 wrote: »

    I never consider the member of Life soc not nice people or the wrong for C&S.
    You've been the only one to state in writing here that they weren't the right people for C&S. Whatever about my own opinions about the soc and its subject matter, I've had nothing but respect for the people involved, unlike you based on your comments above.
    Jester252 wrote: »
    They played by C&S rules but C&S took their ball and went home.
    As is perfectly within the rights of the C&S committees to not accept a prospective soc for whatever reason. That's why a vote was called. Do you not want democracy? I doubt that you have you a better suggestion that would work.
    Jester252 wrote: »
    Not a single objection was down to technical reason
    You've not one shred of evidence from the C&S meetings to support your assertion. There was at least one objection raised. No reason was needed for the objection, none was recorded for the objection - therefore your guess as to the reason is nothing more than that - it's a guess, and based on the conversations I've had with people, you guess inaccurately.

    Jester, I'd suggest that you either accept the decision of C&S, or else you might be better off considering your position on your committee - seeing as you have such an issue with how we run things. You might be less stressed about the situations in C&S and less likely to make as many mistakes as you appear to be making here as a result :)


  • Options
    #104
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Popoutman wrote: »
    And your point is what exactly? I'm perfectly aware of what my opinions are and what they are based on and I haven't tried to hide them and I'm not afraid of what you or people like you may think of me because of them. I also understand well the difference between what I may personally want, and what may be best for my clubs and my socs, the committees that I represent, and the students that I represent. Hence my voting how I did.

    Good to see you've admitted to being bias.
    Was accurate based on the information I had at the time, which was provided directly to me by the soc's president - you don't get much better a first source than that. Of course he went on to try to clarify, but hey, it's an opinion, and a valid one, no matter how much you disagree with it. I probably had access to more current and better information to base that opinion on at that stage, (especially as you show you don't know how long the soc has been in formation) so I think your argument is a bit specious.

    So you formed a base opinion off information that you misunderstood, and than ignored/misunderstood the to clarification. Yet you still voted. I guess you consider ignorance best for C&S.
    I see that you weren't paying attention in the C&S meeting where the discussion was taking place. This is based entirely on the president's descriptions of the upcoming events. I'm not sure what you thought you heard that day (were you even there at the vote? I'll have to check the attendance and see..) but the vast majority of people there came away with the same impressions that I did, which may suggest that what you picked up may be an error.

    So was voting against them having some funding a personal issue or greed?
    Democracy was done right - unless you have an issue with the process? I don't see an issue with the process as it was followed that night. It was done by the book. What is your issue? Is it that you didn't agree with the decision? If that's the case that's unfortunate for you but just something that you have to live with as you don't get to change that decision, and the opportunity to have that decision taken again won't be coming for at least another year or so.

    If it was done right why is the head guy questioning it?
    You've been the only one to state in writing here that they weren't the right people for C&S. Whatever about my own opinions about the soc and its subject matter, I've had nothing but respect for the people involved, unlike you based on your comments above.

    Sigh
    Do you know what an observation is?
    I didn't vote them down other C&S member, who have stated an issue with their views, did after they had met all the C&S regulations.
    Popoutman wrote: »
    I see it as in C&S best interests not to have this soc present, as this type of soc would cause more than the usual sense of bad feeling towards the soc based on my chatting with committee members over the previous weeks, and this sense of bad feeling is not a good thing for C&S. No other soc was as polarising of opinions, and very few opinions were positive. Almost all of the people I chatted with were either against the idea of this type of soc completely, or willing to let them have their trial (against their own personal opinion on the subject) with the hope to see them fail during the trial period.

    This paints a nice clear picture that you and other didn't like them or that they didn't fit in with C&S. That they where not "right" for C&S

    The issue was never with the Soc, just with the C&S Mafia.
    As is perfectly within the rights of the C&S committees to not accept a prospective soc for whatever reason. That's why a vote was called. Do you not want democracy? I doubt that you have you a better suggestion that would work.

    Maybe C&S member check their bias at the door and remember that they are voting not for themselves. ;)
    You've not one shred of evidence from the C&S meetings to support your assertion. There was at least one objection raised. No reason was needed for the objection, none was recorded for the objection - therefore your guess as to the reason is nothing more than that - it's a guess, and based on the conversations I've had with people, you guess inaccurately.

    I got all the evidence I need.

    Technical objections or personal objection, those are the two types

    If technical C&S messed up, as the Soc met the requirement

    If personal C&S messed up. The organisation is bigger than one person opinion.
    Example time
    If Out in UL where setting up, is it right that they might fail because someone on a committee doesn't like LGBTQ?

    Besides I'm not the only one thinking personal opinion is the issue.

    Now do you think personal opinion should be allowed?

    If yes that maybe we should stop telling people that C&S welcomes everyone.

    Jester, I'd suggest that you either accept the decision of C&S, or else you might be better off considering your position on your committee - seeing as you have such an issue with how we run things. You might be less stressed about the situations in C&S and less likely to make as many mistakes as you appear to be making here as a result :)

    I'm not letting my heart rule my head and I wonder how much confidence do you have in C&S decision, to close the door on a group of students, was the right thing to do seen as you're up at 3 a.m defending it.


  • Options
    #105
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    Popoutman wrote: »
    You've not one shred of evidence from the C&S meetings to support your assertion. There was at least one objection raised. No reason was needed for the objection, none was recorded for the objection - therefore your guess as to the reason is nothing more than that - it's a guess, and based on the conversations I've had with people, you guess inaccurately.

    Uh-oh the minutes don't list ANY OBJECTIONS!
    Popoutman wrote: »
    Jester, I'd suggest that you either accept the decision of C&S, or else you might be better off considering your position on your committee - seeing as you have such an issue with how we run things. You might be less stressed about the situations in C&S and less likely to make as many mistakes as you appear to be making here as a result :)

    You are attacking a poster here; I would kindly ask that personal attacks are left elsewhere.

    As for accepting the decision of C&S; Paul's email highlights that even he doesn't know what to do.

    My best guess is because A. they meet ALL the criteria to be a society and B. A vote for ratification was a first which, also a first, wasn't ratified.

    And if you believe that they did NOT meet the criteria to be a society, then Paul/the exec has failed in his/their job


  • Options
    #106
    Polar Ice
    Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Polar Ice


    Popoutman wrote: »
    As it is now, the failed soc has no rights to poster on campus or to campaign on campus.

    Becoming a club/soc doesn't confer posting rights. Being denied C&S status doesn't deny postering either.
    Chimaera wrote: »
    Normal rules for postering is that there must be a stamp from ULSU, Student Affairs or Student Personnel Services on it. There may be exceptions, particularly for official UL posters.


  • Options
    #107
    Reiver
    Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Reiver


    I the issue Polar Ice might be the fact that it states "UL" in the poster, giving the impression its a university sanctioned entity.
    But yeah, I'd say you'd be right normally, I mean once you got the stamp you can advertise whatever table quiz/debate/event you want.


    <snip real names of posters> it mightn't be in the minutes but for what its worth, Darragh asked of the floor, "Is there any objections?". Three hands went up, it got put to a vote. Thats what happened.

    And "C and S Mafia"? Ease off the slurs. It wasn't exactly on a par with the Saint Valentine's Massacre or something you'd see in Donnie Brasco. Theres a lot of upright, clean-living Sicilians and CNS members who'd object to that comparison. This is as bad as Irishskyboxer denouncing the inherent nobility of Cromwell.


  • Options
    #108
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Reiver wrote: »
    <snip real names of posters> it mightn't be in the minutes but for what its worth, Darragh asked of the floor, "Is there any objections?". Three hands went up, it got put to a vote. Thats what happened.

    Who are you talking to?

    If it not in the minutes kinda hard to support your claim.
    And "C and S Mafia"? Grow up a little. It wasn't exactly on a par with the Saint Valentine's Massacre or something you'd see in Donnie Brasco. Theres a lot of upright, clean-living Sicilians and CNS members who'd object to that comparison.

    but similar to the St. Valentine Massacre. They where lined in front of C&S and shot down by C&S members, who where pretending to be open minded to all student.

    Unless you where referring to the 1999 WWF PPV and I doubt there was a cage match between Paul Lee and UL Life President, with Paul Wight making his début in C&S.


  • Options
    #109
    Reiver
    Registered Users Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Reiver


    I will admit the idea of a Thunderdome style cage match with hawkers and spectators baying for blood would be a cool one. Perhaps we could adopt that for new club/society ratification! Props.

    It seems to be retreading the same ground, people saying it was enacted fairly, other people saying it wasn't. If the issue has been flagged for further CNS discussion, then we'll see what develops. Boards for all its power will not be able to enhance or rectify the experience. I'm out. See y'all on other threads!


  • Options
    #110
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    This discussion has help highlight major issues with the ratification process.


  • Options
    #111
    DK man
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭DK man


    Is this North Korea? The op sounds like he'd fit right in. Doesn't say much for a ul education


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,115 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    Posters are reminded that any 'outing' of other posters real-life names is not done in these parts.


  • Options
    #113
    bazkennedy
    Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭bazkennedy


    Made the journal today http://www.thejournal.ie/pro-life-university-of-limerick-1372748-Mar2014/


  • Options
    #114
    Popoutman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Popoutman


    Edited to remove a pointless comment as there's no point in continuing this thread.
    The pro-life soc is dead in the water this year at least from a C&S perspective. The democratic rights of everyone involved were correctly respected - there's no grounds for an appeal so that'll just be a waste of time for Paul et al.


  • Options
    #115
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Popoutman wrote: »
    Edited to remove a pointless comment as there's no point in continuing this thread.
    The pro-life soc is dead in the water this year at least from a C&S perspective. The democratic rights of everyone involved were correctly respected - there's no grounds for an appeal so that'll just be a waste of time for Paul et al.

    They do have grounds for an appeal. They met all the requirements for C&S. You don't have a "democratic right" as an elected student to C&S you have a responsibly.

    This sets a dangerous precedence for C&S. We know that C&S isn't open to all students.


  • Options
    #116
    NoBSLies
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭NoBSLies


    People have had enough of the lies and victim-playing at this stage. Please God give it a rest already! It happened here already and now again in the Journal. When confronted with the fact the posters from Life Society used for their information day had no ULSU stamp on them the chairman of the Soc stated that all the posters had the stamp. When it was brought to his attention that the there is photographic evidence to prove him wrong he doesn't respond. The society lied to C&S Council and now they try to play the victim. Seriously!? Drop it already or maybe next time be more upfront and honest. Democracy had its say. I mean men get to vote on what women get to do with their vaginas and others get to vote on marriage equality when it in no way effects them. Thats democracy though unfortunately. I often disagree with it for these reasons but I make do because thats how democracy works. Its time Manuel Kuhs and his society just accept reality. They failed, thats all there is to it.


  • Options
    #117
    Popoutman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Popoutman


    Jester252 wrote: »
    They do have grounds for an appeal. They met all the requirements for C&S.

    You've missed out the requirement for C&S that they did *not* pass. They did not pass the "any objections" question at the C&S meeting, and they did not pass the resulting vote. Being unhappy with the result of a vote is no grounds for an appeal. There were no problems with procedure - therefore no grounds for appeal.
    Jester252 wrote: »
    You don't have a "democratic right" as an elected student to C&S you have a responsibly.
    I presume you meant "responsibility"? If so, then yes all rights confer responsibilities. In this case each C&S member has the responsibility to act in the best interests of their group, and if that means refusing another group entry then that is their democratic right as enabled in the consititution to do so. Or did you mean something else entirely? If so please clarify what you were trying to get across.
    Jester252 wrote: »
    This sets a dangerous precedence for C&S. We know that C&S isn't open to all students.
    As for the openness of C&S to students - I fear you conflate the ability of students to be members of clubs, and clubs/socs being part of C&S. None of the pro-life group were prevented from joining C&S, and they are still perfectly free to join any of the other C&S groups. The pro-life group itself was prevented from joining C&S. Please be aware of the difference, and do not promote incorrect "facts" when discussing this issue.
    The only precedent that was set was that the rights of the C&S group were exercised as per the C&S constitution to refuse a group entry to C&S. Nothing more than that, and there's nothing at all dangerous about it given how it was done perfectly correctly and by the C&S book.

    Nothing more to see here - please move along..


  • Options
    #118
    NewEd
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭NewEd


    Page 19. http://issuu.com/ulsu/docs/an_focal_-_march_2014_-_24_pages
    http://www.anfocal.ie/featured/11077/ul-pro-life-society


  • Options
    #119
    Jester252
    Registered Users Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Popoutman wrote: »
    You've missed out the requirement for C&S that they did *not* pass. They did not pass the "any objections" question at the C&S meeting, and they did not pass the resulting vote. Being unhappy with the result of a vote is no grounds for an appeal. There were no problems with procedure - therefore no grounds for appeal.

    A vote tainted with personal opinions. They met all the technical red tape, a lot more than some other C&S's can say. The only reason they where turned away is because they were not the right kind of people for C&S and people who voted against them didn't want them around.
    I presume you meant "responsibility"? If so, then yes all rights confer responsibilities. In this case each C&S member has the responsibility to act in the best interests of their group, and if that means refusing another group entry then that is their democratic right as enabled in the consititution to do so. Or did you mean something else entirely? If so please clarify what you were trying to get across.

    Nobody likes a grammar nazi. How does the Life soc affect any C&S like mountain biking and maths? Was the vote based on greed? Did the C&S that voted against them just didn't want to share the funding and take a smaller cut?
    As for the openness of C&S to students - I fear you conflate the ability of students to be members of clubs, and clubs/socs being part of C&S. None of the pro-life group were prevented from joining C&S, and they are still perfectly free to join any of the other C&S groups. The pro-life group itself was prevented from joining C&S. Please be aware of the difference, and do not promote incorrect "facts" when discussing this issue.
    The only precedent that was set was that the rights of the C&S group were exercised as per the C&S constitution to refuse a group entry to C&S. Nothing more than that, and there's nothing at all dangerous about it given how it was done perfectly correctly and by the C&S book.

    Nothing more to see here - please move along..

    A bit like how LGBT can march in the New York Paddy's day parade as long as they are not part of an LGBT group.
    How can you still claim that C&S is open to all student, when they shut the door to a group of students looking to get involved.
    I'm not the only one worried about the precedent that this has set. Paul is worried. Do you know think you know more than him and he is wrong to be worried?


  • Options
    #120
    wnolan1992
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,009 Mod ✭✭✭✭wnolan1992


    Jester252 wrote: »
    A vote tainted with personal opinions.

    Is there such a thing as an impartial vote? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Subutai
    Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭Subutai


    wnolan1992 wrote: »
    Is there such a thing as an impartial vote? :pac:

    One could vote on the basis of an application of a rule, like a vote taken by a Jury, for example. Rather than being based on arbitrary personal opinions it is based on consistent application of a principle.


Advertisement