Ben Archibald wins DITSU

by Thanks ben Fri Mar 19, 2004 09:49

Thanks for telling us that Ben

by Pundit Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:07

I hope that democracy prevails and you win. If Rory wins then USI policy will be decided by RBB, Aoife & Joey and other SWP goons.

by torywatcher Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:14

ben archibald is still a tory he is running for the uk union as a tory. he told council in ucd that he was not a tory - liar. don't vote in a rightwing liar as usi pres.

www.practicalpolitics.co.uk.

http://ldys.homestead.com/3_Treasurer_Archibald.pdf

by Pundit Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:20

Dont vote for Rory he is a member of the SWP a Leninist stooge. He supports a Leninist Dictatorship. All dissidents are expelled from the SWP - ask them about the Rathmines Branch. The SWP take over campaigns and expel anyone who disagree with them - look at the IAWM.

Rory will not follow the mandate of USI. In TCDSU Rory always did his own thing and bypassed the Council, bringing in SWP goons from outside TCD to carry out stunts.

Ben has always followed the democratic USI mandate.

Vote for Democracy!
Vote for Ben!

by democrat Fri Mar 19, 2004 14:17

ben is proud to be a member of the tories who tried their best to smash trade unionism. ben is not a democrat he wants the usi to be a commercial operation with no real power to challenge the establishment. if ben wins it means that usi will become more and more irrellevnat.

by Pundit Fri Mar 19, 2004 14:30

What anti democratic acts has Ben committed while an officer of USI? None!

Its a different story for Rory! He consistently ignored the TCDSU and did not follow democratic mandates!

by UCD Hedd Fri Mar 19, 2004 14:34

Thats what Leninists want to do. Under Lenin and TRotsky strikes were banned and Unions were made part of the oppressive State apparatus. Trotsky called for the militarisation of labour. Dont trust the SWP Leninist Rory Hearn he will bring an end to any democracy in USI.

by Astonished Fri Mar 19, 2004 18:37

Wait until you guys get into the real world..
If you look at http://ldys.homestead.com/3_Treasurer_Archibald.pdf
which somone posted above this Ben guy admits freely he's a Tory.
I don't see that Hearn as member of the SWP is a danger to a student Union.
I'm not a Trot or leninist but compare the SWP in the the UK and the Tories on the Miner's Strike...I think you'd find a difference.
The Tories are anti union- Fact.
When you guys grow up and get a job you'll know then whos' side Tories are on...good luck voting for that idiot.

by Astonished Fri Mar 19, 2004 18:38

Did I say you guys- that guy Pundit and Ucd Hedd are the same person.
Caught you

by Pundit Fri Mar 19, 2004 18:43

Nope, not the Hedd. The SWP are a threat to democracy they wreck everything they touch. Hearn is not to be trusted, he did not follow a democratic mandate in TCDSU. He will get his instructions from the SWP.

Archibald has always followed the USI mandate.

Vote for Hearn and get RBB for Free!

Vote for Democracy. Vote for Ben.

by Pundit Fri Mar 19, 2004 19:05

Less of the shouting please.

Ben has always followed the democratic mandate of USI Congress. Nobody has found any grounds for criticising how he has carried out his duties.

Rory never followed the mandate of TCDSU. Policy decided by the SU was treated with contempt by him. He bypassed TCDSU and brought in SWP goons from outside TCD to take part in stunts. He is not to be trusted. In TCDSU he was the puppet of Conor Kostick. In USI he will be the puppet of Richard Boyd Barrett.

The SWP do not believe in democracy, all dissidents are expelled, they undemocratically take over groups and expel any opposition - look at IAWM. Do you want them to run USI.

If you think USI policy should be decided by USI Congress, vote for Ben.

If You think USI policy should be decided by the SWP, vote for Hearn.

by UCD Hedd Fri Mar 19, 2004 20:06

I've been round longer than Pundit. You Mr Astonished sound like some of the others. You just keep repeating the same dirge. If you have a list of crimes committed by Ben boy put up or shut up. Everyone knows what a geek Rory boy is. Ask Nelson Mandela.

by The Insider Fri Mar 19, 2004 22:58

Johnathan Tiernan, from St. Patrick's College Drumcondra has pulled out of the USI elections. Tiernan was the only candidate and his withdrawal means the position of deputy president/campaigns officer will be filled at June national council.


Anyone from the left up for it?

by Torywatch Sat Mar 20, 2004 13:43

The SWP certainly have a patchy record of internal democracy and an unhealthy approach to broader formations. But this is NOTHING compared to the Tory party. The Tories are ideologically in favour of smashing the trade union movement. Just look at 20 years ago, they tried to smash the trade unions during the miners strike. Ben Archibald is on record as saying he is 'proud' to be a member of this party.

Ben also has lied to the electorate. He went to UCD council saying he is not a Tory and he has left that party and the only reason he joined was because it was not one of the big 4 parties in the North. What rubbish, all over the net there are statements saying how he is a proud tory and how gread Howard is etc etc. He is even currently running for a position in NUS as a Tory candidate. This guy can't be trusted. He is a right wing liar.

Another thing, I have my problems with the SWP, but I find it amazing that critics of the SWP that seem to be anarchists are backing a Tory on this site over Rory Hearne. It really shows the middle class bankruptcy of Anarchism

by Howard the Great Sat Mar 20, 2004 18:11

Ben supported Ken Clarke for leader against IDS and called for Michael Portillo to stand, then David Davis, against Michael Howard. He wasn't a member of the party, but was influential enough to be picked on to back someone as a sort of lefty outsider.

He then wrote an article calling for the moderation and modernisation of the party. He's a bit like Philip Oppenheim (former MP turned nightclub owner), except he has no money.

by Joe Flanning Sun Mar 21, 2004 04:05

Hey, Rory (a.k.a. Torywatch), nice to see you take a critical approach to your own party (SWP).

Now would you be prepared to say the same thing under your real name in public, not just hiding under an Indymedia pseudonym???

by Torywatch Sun Mar 21, 2004 19:22

torywatch is pleased to confirm that he is NOT a member of the SWP and is NOT Rory Hearne

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:49

Still no answers as to why Rory refused to follow a democratic mandate in TCDSU.

If Hearn is elected he will take his orders from the SWP National Committe.

If Archibald is elected he will take his orders from the USI National Council.

Vote for Democracy!

Vote for Ben!

by Leftie Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:47

Still no answers as to why Ben refused to tell the truth to UCDSU Council about his Tory membership.

And still no answers as to what he did following UCDSU Councils near unanimous motion calling for action against Dave Murphy's jailing.

If Archibald is elected he will take his orders from the Tories. He's a liar and a bureacrat.

If Hearne is elected he will take his orders from the USI National Council and the USI membership.

Vote for Fighting Democratic Student Union!

Vote for Rory Hearn!

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:54

Ben as a USI Officer takes his instructions from USI, not UCDSU. What motions regarding Dave did UCDSU have passed at USI?

What USI madates did Ben not carry out?

Why did Hearn ignore the mandates of TCDSU?

Why are TCDSU voting for Archibald rather than Hearn?

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 13:11

UCDSU council voted almost unanamously in favour of a motion setting up a free Dave Murphy campaign, only 4 voted against the motion out of a council of over 100 members. The UCDSU council hos far more democratic and in touch than any USI body. UCDSU council is elected in competitive elections not simply hacks electing hacks.

In Academic Council elections 79% of students voted for Anti Jailings candidates. In this election there was the highest ever turnout for an Academic Council election. Over 4,500 voted that day. This is more votes than any USI officer ever got in a USI election.

Ben simply was using the USI proceedures as an excuse to sit on his hands. There was massive anger about the jailing of an elected and popular Class Rep. His jailing was an attack on democracy and the student movement. USI should have at least done the little that was asked of them ie sponsor a city centre demo and give a token speech.

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 13:16

"Why are TCDSU voting for Archibald rather than Hearn?"

I could just as easily ask, why are UCD not voting for Toryboy?

The answer is of course that Toryboy blatently lied to SU council regarding his membership of the Tory party and showed complete disrespect for the motion passed calling for USI to take up Dave Murphy's case. These were the two main reasons why UCD rejected Toryboy - FACT

Lots of the hacks in USI underestimate the anger that UCD class reps have regarding the Dave Murphy case. You will all see it down there at congress.

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 13:36

Your arrogance at times can be off-putting. Ben takes his instructions from USI, not from individual SUs. UCDSU are well aware of why these structures exist, otherwise what happens if 2 colleges sends in contradictory motions? What if a small right wing college sent up a motion to USI calling on them to campaign against Abortion? Should Ben have issued a statement endorsing this?

If UCDSU wanted action taken regarding Dave then they knew how to raise it through USI structures. The question is why didnt they?

The fact remains that Ben has always followed the democratic mandate of USI.

Rory has always followed the mandate of the SWP.

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 13:52

UCDSU did bring these issues up through USI and with USI officers. But the fact is that National Council only meets a few times a year and by the time it would have met to discuss the Dave Murphy case he would have bee freed.

I am aware that Ben has to act through USI structures for reasons of democracy. But sometimes USI officers can't wait until they have a mandate to take action, they have to judge the mood and take what they see as the appropiate action. This was such a case, it is not like abortion or other long standing issues. The jailing happened without much notice and the sentence was for 3 weeks (not enough time to get a mandate) There was also huge anger on the ground among a large section of the membership of USI about Dave Murphy's jailing. This was reflected in the Academic Council election. Remember Anti Jailings candidates got 79% and 4,500 voted in UCD that day. More people than will ever vote in a USI election and more than most colleges affiliated to USI.

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 14:00

Its his job to take his orders from USI not from UCDSU.

On the other hand Rory refused to follow the mandate of TCDSU.

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 14:43

"Its his job to take his orders from USI not from UCDSU."

It is the job of USI officers to fight for and represent the interests of its members. Something they have continually failed to do. USI officers should not allow bureacratic proceedures to get in the way of their job. The membership were calling on USI to take some action on the issue. It is the grassroot feeling that are reflected in the results of the Council motion and Academic Council elections in UCD. that is where USI should be taking its lead from not an elite group of unrepresentative hacks.

In the case of Dave Murphy, he was a USI member who was elected as a class rep, he participated in and helped organise many demos against fees and cuts he also campaigned hard for UCD to remain affiliated to USI last year. When this kind of USI activist is jailed for peacefully protesting and all the USI officers do is sit on their hands while hiding behind bureacratic proceedure, it is an utter disgrace.

In UCD at the time there was huge anger about USI's inaction, there was even talk of setting up a break away national union! I hope to god that the UCD delegates (nearly all of whom were active in the free dave murphy campaign) really give Priestly et al hell down at congress.

AS for TCD, I don't know the details of what Rory allegedly did or did not do, so I can't really comment. But I will say this, I know Rory, he is a genuine activist, he is not a careerist like the other and is only interested in furthering the student movement.

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 14:52

Its the job of USI to represent all affiliated colleges. Now you have admitted that Ben followed his USI mandate. Your problem is that you want to overturn the USI structures when it suits you. But if Ben were to were to go outside a USI mandate and do something you disagreed with you would be the first to attack him.

The fact remains that Ben has not gone outside a democratic mandate.

Rory has never obeyed a democratic mandate.

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 15:08

It is not a case of overturning USI structures when it suits me. I repeat it is the job of USI officers to fight for and represent the interests of its members. On some issues such as the Dave Murphy jailing can't wait for the bureacratic apparatus of USI to warm up. Officers sometimes have to judge the mood on the ground and do what they are paid to do ie fight for its members even if this means that they strictly don't have a mandate.

Archibald etc did not strictly have a mandate to take action but they did not not have a mandate. Sometimes USI officers think they need a mandate to scratch their arses.

by enviromentalist Mon Mar 22, 2004 15:15

I am in USI and i support bin tax's. so do most members. They did not support dave murphy or the sp led protests. The knew given the structure of local government they were useless. who are you to ignore my opinion.

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 15:33

The rights and wrongs of the bin tax is really irrelevent in this debate, it is really is civil rights issue. Regardless of how you feel about Bin Tax, I think you would agree that the way that the government used injunctions and the prisons to attempt to smash opposition to their policy was utterly draconian. The UCDSU and the 'Free Dave Murphy Campaign' never took a position on Bin Tax, what they opposed was the jailings. They never asked USI to take an anti bin tax position, all was asked of USI that they sponsor a demonstration against the jailing of Dave Murphy.

These injunctions that were used against the anti bin tax campaign can and will be used against other sections of society that choose to oppose government policy. We have already seen these tactics been used against farmers and they could well be used against students if we oppose fees. That is why USI should have actively opposed this jailing.

By the way I doubt very much a majority of USI members support bin tax. There is no figures whatsoever to back this up. Only one thing is certain, 79% of UCD students voted for Anti JAilings candidates in the AC election, 4,500 students voted in UCD that day. Also in UCDSU council only 4 out of 101 class reps voted against the establishment of the 'free dave murphy campaign'. What about these students? what about their right to be represented by USI, why shoudl they be ignored by the USI officers?

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 15:41

What way should they be changed? Should any motion forwarded from UCDSU be immediately actted on regardless of whether its in line with USI policy?

What about other colleges? What if other colleges send in motions which are not in line with USI policy should USI automatically support them?

Or should USI only go outside its structures when it suits you?

You are right, its not about Bin Tax, its about you being annoyed with BEn because he didnt dance to the UCDSU tune.

Ben has always followed mandates decided democratically by USI.

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 15:45

"Only one thing is certain, 79% of UCD students voted for Anti JAilings candidates in the AC election, 4,500 students voted in UCD that day. Also in UCDSU council only 4 out of 101 class reps voted against the establishment of the 'free dave murphy campaign'. What about these students? what about their right to be represented by USI, why shoudl they be ignored by the USI officers?"

UCDSU is not USI. I am sure there is some college where a majority would vote that USI should oppose Abortion in all circumstances. What about them and their right to be represented?

Should they be ignored by USI officers?

Yes. They can fight for their position at USI Congress and National Council but USI officers do not and should not be bound by the decisions of individual SUs.

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 16:08

"UCDSU is not USI. I am sure there is some college where a majority would vote that USI should oppose Abortion in all circumstances. What about them and their right to be represented?"

Well UCD was the college that was primarily effected by the jailing. I am 100% sure that if referenda were taken around the various SU's about whether or not USI should back up the stance taken by UCD you would find most colleges would vote in favour of the stance UCD took. In the only college where it did go to a vote there was a overwhelming vote in favour of anti jailings candidates.

"Should they be ignored by USI officers?"

What about the right of Dave Murphy and the thousends of students that voted against his jailing to be represented by USI? Do these students not have a right to be represented. Why should they be ignored by USI officers?

"Yes. They can fight for their position at USI Congress and National Council but USI officers do not and should not be bound by the decisions of individual SUs"

As I have already pointed out, National Council would not have met until AFTER Dave was released and same goes for congress. I am not saying that USI officers shoudl be bound by individual SU's, what I am saying is that USI officers should be there to represent its members and fight in their interests. In the case of Dave Murphy they failed to do this.

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 16:17

Why should UCDSU be treated in a special manner? Why didnt you address my points about other colleges raising positions that you would disagree with?

Are you saying that USI should act favourably on all motions they get from colleges regardless of USI policy? How are USI supposed to decide which ones to act on? Should they consult the SWP and SP?

If there was such support for Dave in other colleges then why didnt they send in such motions?

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 16:27

"Why should UCDSU be treated in a special manner?"

Exactly my question, why is it that UCD students are ignored by USI officers?

I have addressed your question. I am NOT saying that USI should be bound by any particular college. What I am clearly saying is this, USI is there to fight for and represent its members. In this case USI utterly failed to even acknowledge the motion passed by UCDSU council, this is despite there being massive support on the ground for David Murphy.

AS for USI having to consult wiht the SP and the SWP. You are talking shite. Are you claiming that 79% of UCD students are members of the SP or the SWP? Are you caliming that there are only 4 members of UCDSU council that are not SP or SWP members?

There was support in other colleges for Dave. Dave recieved letters of support from students in colleges all over the country and even from SU's around the world. Motions were not passed by SU's because of the length of the sentence, 3 weeks is not a sufficient time to have the issue publicised debated and motions passed all around the country.

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 16:47

""Why should UCDSU be treated in a special manner?"

Exactly my question, why is it that UCD students are ignored by USI officers? I have addressed your question. I am NOT saying that USI should be bound by any particular college. "

You are looking for special treatment for UCDSU. Why should they act on a UCDSU motion and not act on a motion from another college that you disagree with?

"AS for USI having to consult wiht the SP and the SWP. You are talking shite. Are you claiming that 79% of UCD students are members of the SP or the SWP? "

Nope. I'm only asking how USI should decide which motions to act on. If the y act on UCD ones then why not on every motion that comes in frm every college? How are they to decide? Should they have conflicting policies that change from month to month?


"There was support in other colleges for Dave. Motions were not passed by SU's because of the length of the sentence, 3 weeks is not a sufficient time to have the issue publicised debated and motions passed all around the country."

If UCDSU really wanted USI to take action then they could have quickly sent speakers to a selection of colleges around the Island. Say QUB, UCC, UL , UCG, LIT. If these colleges had passed motions then it would have pointed to a groundswell of support for DAve and USI should have acted. In the abscence of UCDSU even attempting to do this, why should USI act?

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 17:04

I am sick and tired of repeating myself!

USI is there to represent it's members and fight on theri behalf. This includes UCD students, we are not looking for special treatment and are not expecting it.

There was NO MANDATE prohibiting USI officers in taking up Dave's case. You do not need mandates to absolutely everything, claiming that you do is simply hiding behind the bureacracy.

Again I have to stress, Dave was lifted from the street up in court and in jail within 48 hours, he was then jailed for 3 weeks. 3 Weeks is not enough time to organise a speaking tour and a mass campaign among 250,000 people especially when USI is hostile.

by Pundit Mon Mar 22, 2004 17:48

"am sick and tired of repeating myself!"

Well quit it then

"USI is there to represent it's members and fight on theri behalf. This includes UCD students, we are not looking for special treatment and are not expecting it."

Why should USI act outside of its procedures to satisffy UCDSU? Why shouldnt it also act on EVERY other motion it gets? You have not addressed this: should USI policy change from week to week depending on the motions sent up from different colleges?

"Again I have to stress, Dave was lifted from the street up in court and in jail within 48 hours, he was then jailed for 3 weeks. 3 Weeks is not enough time to organise a speaking tour and a mass campaign among 250,000 people especially when USI is hostile."

Its enough time for UCDSU to send speakers to 3-4 other SUs if they were serious. Personally I support the Anti Bin Rax campaign and Dave. But you are misusing these issues to attack Ben.

Ben at all times followed the democratic mandate of USI as decided by Congress and National Council.

Rory follows the instuctions he gets from the SWP.

If you believe that USI policy should be decided by the SWP , vote for Rory.

If you believe that USI policy should be decided by USI Congress and National Council, vote for Ben.

by UCD Class Rep Mon Mar 22, 2004 21:22

"Personally I support the Anti Bin Rax (sic)campaign and Dave"

No you don't. If you did why did you do nothing when Dave was jailed??You are obviously some USI officer or student union member somewhere. Why did Ben do nothing??

"Ben at all times followed the democratic mandate of USI as decided by Congress and National Council."

The trouble is that's all he ever does. He never tries to use his position to actually activate students, that would mean sometime acting without a mandate and just having to trust his instincts. Sure it's easier for him that way at least he can't make any mistakes and possibly get a bit of a hard time off some hacks. Lets face it Ben wouldn't scratch his arse if he didn't have a nice safe USI mandate to do it.

If you believe in a USI that will fight for students, defend the right to protest and not hide behind proceedure then vote Rory!

If you want the same old tired 'partnership/lobby' ineffective mess then vote Tory!

by Pundit Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:02

You live in a fantasy world where everyone agrees with you. But when you encounter the real world you get a shock. USI does not have to do what UCDSU say. USI operates through procedures. If you want to nchange those then get your college to submit amendments.

But the only amendment which would cover what you want is that USI should instantly act on every motion they get from every college, regardless of whether the motions are contradictory.

You still havent told us why UCDSU didnt send speakers to other colleges to get them to raise motions about Dave.

by UCD Class Rep Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:24

I have told you and I have answered all your critisisms, I will not repeat myself.

Why don't you answer some questions? What about the allegation that I believe Ben Archibald and the rest of the USI bureacracy hid behind bureacratic proceedure as an excuse not to do anything about Dave Murphy.

Do you acknowledge that a mandate is not needed to do absolutely everything?

Can you not see the practical difficulties in organising a speaking tour of UCD officers in the middle of a mass campaign in UCD against Dave's jailing? and in the middle of 10k walk and everything elxe that the SU gets up to?

by Pundit Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:37

How are USI to decide which motions they should act on? What if the motions they receive are contradictory? Is it only motions from UCDSU that they should act on?

The people who moan the most had plenty of time to do SWP and SP work. Funny they couldnt find some time to go to other colleges to campaign for Dave.

Are you really saying that a 10 km walk was more important to UCDSU than organising solidarity for Dave? If thats the case then why should USI move without a mandate?

by UCD Class Rep Tue Mar 23, 2004 14:13

USI is there to fight for its members and their intetrests. Do you agree or not? Answer please.

If you do agree do you not think that if a student gets jailed and given a huge fine for peacefully protesting under a draconian injunction do you not think USI should do something for this student? Yes or No?

If your answer is yes, then why did USI do nothing? They don't need a mandate for every action., hiding behind unneccesary proceedure is just an excuse for inaction.

As for UCD people not contacting USI and othe rcolleges. This did not happen. USI officers were well aware of Dave Murphy's case and they were asked to take action. In other colleges notably, QUB, TCD and UL motions were in the process of being put down on their councils. However in all these cases the council did not meet or ruled the motions out of order. Nevertheless Dave still recieved hundreds of messages of support from student all around the country and internationally.

In any case this is the job of USI officers, they are the ones that are meant to organise aqction between colleges, why were they not doing this? UCD is a huge college, it has 21,000 students, the Free Dave Murphy Campaing WAS a huge mass campaign. In the course of the campaign, nearly all those students were lecture addressed, canvassed, handed leaflets etc. This takes quite alot of time and effort to organise.

79% of students voted for anti jailings candidates in the AC elections, over 4,500 people voted that day, Do you not think that it is an insult to these USI members that they be completely ignored by the USI leadership? Remember UCD's letters asking for action were not even acknowledged by Priestly.

by Pundit Tue Mar 23, 2004 14:43

Thats what we keep getting back to.

What you have not dealt with is the issue of how USI should react to motions from colleges. What criteria should they use to decide on which motions to implement?

Is it only those which suit the needs of UCDSU that should be implemented?

What if a constituent college sent up a motion instructing USI to campaign against abortion in all circumstances? Should USI issue a statement supporting that? The logic of your position is that USI should do just that. Unless you believe that USI is there solely to follow the instructions of UCDSU.

Your excuses about why you did not send speakers to other colleges are pathethic.

by Giveitarest Tue Mar 23, 2004 14:56

"In other colleges notably, QUB, TCD and UL motions were in the process of being put down on their councils. However in all these cases the council did not meet or ruled the motions out of order. "

So those other Colleges did not support yopur campaign then. Otherwise the Councils would have held emergency meetings or ruled the motions in order.

by UCD Class Rep Tue Mar 23, 2004 15:12

If you think that councils are always representative bodies you are a fool. In the vast majority of colleges SU councils are elected by rotten buroughs and are based on personality. Unless class rep elections occur that actually have the majority of seats contested with competitive elections on the issues effecting the SU NOT just personality then these bodies are not really representative of the membership.

And even if this is the case, bureacratic proceedure such as ruling motions out of order etc can be used to stop free votes. Just look at GAA congress

There is no reason to believe that UCD students are any different to students in other colleges. UCD students were well aware of the Dave Murphy case and they voted by 79% against his jailing. If students in other colleges were aware of the case I am 100% sure they would vote in similar numbers.

Now stop deflecting away from USI inaction and explain why USI officers did not do what they could for Dave Murphy. ANSWER!!

by Pundit Tue Mar 23, 2004 15:31

'If you think that councils are always representative bodies you are a fool. In the vast majority of colleges SU councils are elected by rotten buroughs and are based on personality. '

What? QUB, TCD and UL (the colleges considering motions) are rotten booughs but UCDSU is magically different! Do you have any idea of how elitist and arrogant that sounds?

You are obviously a cultist. ONLY your SU is democratically elected! ONLY your SU is right!

by UCD Class Rep Tue Mar 23, 2004 15:38

I said quite clearly that even if these bodies are representative bureacratic proceedure can be used to stop a motion being taken. look at GAA congress.

UCD council is certainly not perfect, there are a few rotten burroughs and not all seats were contested in competitive elections. But thats not really an issue as 79% voted for candidates that stood on an anti jailings ticket in the Academic Council election.

You are the arrogant one. Why will you not answer my questions. Go on read back and **ANSWER**

by Pundit Tue Mar 23, 2004 16:59

Its the same lack of logic that comes from tintin, magma, OK, FK. You havent answered the qusetions:

How would USI decide on which motions to implement?

Should USI policy change from week to week depending on which college sends in a motion?

Should only motions from UCDSU be implemented by USI?

Why didnt you send speakers to other colleges?

Are you saying that QUB, UL and TCD SUs are rottem boroughs?

by Sysephius Fri Apr 02, 2004 18:02

Ben Archibald sent an email of support to the UCDSU and supported Gareth Keogh's presence at the rally.

Just thought I'd drop that in.

by Opus Sat Apr 03, 2004 19:31

Why did he not attend the rallies himself? Why did he not come out and actively campaign for Dave's release? Words and letters are very easy to spout out, the real test is whether or not he actually did anything

Call me a cynic but the real reason he sent any messages of support was because he was going for election and could have done with UCD's 28 votes.

by Sysephius Sat Apr 03, 2004 21:48

Not entirely the best use of officer time or finances to attend a rally in Dublin when it was perfectly clear that the Deputy President was going to be in attendance.

And there was a lot on at the time....