Saint's Use of Association Facilities

[harmless loony]

Perhaps it was a light hearted joke. You've already said the guy wasn't offended by what was written about him. And everyone knows the nature of the Saint - it's not to be taken seriously.

All jokes/humour are always at the expense of someone or something.

If he knew the Saint were taking a pic of him then the photo became the property of the Saint and they could do what the hell they like with it and put whatever caption they liked provided it wasn't OTT. However, if the photo was taken and published without his prior consent then perhaps it's a different ball game and if that is the case then you can ignore what I've said.

Like I said, everyone knows the Saint takes the piss (interpret that which ever way you want) therefore, there's always a chance if they take ure pic/or anyone elses - they are going to use it for a comedy purpose - here's a simple solution - don't allow the Saint team to take your photo.

I think this is being blown out of proportion and still I'm yet to see the exact offending articles that caused the expulsion. All I've seen is people blowing hot air and trying to be seen to be doing something controversial so that they are remembered for doing something controversial.

Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the Saint (aint bought a copy this academic year) but 9 months of Union time wasted on this issue, frankly takes the piss - surely an issue such as this should not have required this much time being wasted. (And yes it is time wasted because it has served to solve nothing and no one (the people who were offended, the Saint or the Union) is any better off.

[sweet]

oh dear, look he didn't take it personally, i did!! this is in danger of being blown out of proportion. i though it was a bit shit was all.

[Societies Officer]

[s]Bread Roll wrote on 20:20, 15th Dec 2004:
Do the KK not use the Union building for the distribution of 'bop' bands for the May Ball? Does this ruling just apply to those using the building as a permanent base, just out of interest?



Everytime a group who is seen to be discriminating want to use the building, they have to petition for it. The SSC then decides whether or not that event is itself discriminatory. Examples being the CU wishing to hold talks in Venue 2 - as any student was allowed to attend the event regardless of their faith, permission to use the building was granted. A condition being that they cannot recruit during that event. Another was when the Lumsden Club wanted to have a stall at the Societies Fayre. They had to petition, permission was granted but they were not allowed to recruit because of their discriminative membership regulations.

The Saint since the beginning of the year have been petitioning to use the building for their event ie publication of an issue. The permission is granted only if the event is seen to be non-discriminative, but there have been numerous complaints made. On top of that, a condition of their petition was them working with the Equal Opportunities Committee to come back into line with the Union's policy. It was believed they hadn't taken adequate steps and thus permission this time was not granted. If The Saint finally adheres to all Union rules and regulations then they can petition to use the building again. There is nothing to stop them doing this.

[Ewan Husami]

From what I gather, the Students' Association hasn't shut down The Saint, merely withdrawn permission for The Saint to use the Students' Association building for the purpose of creating the paper.

The Chihuahua team do a great job of publishing their paper, without the need for an office in the building, as do the Mitre. I see no reason why The Saint can't continue their work from their own bedrooms.




The point made by the Student Support Officer (Dave Vinton) above seems to sum it up for me - the Students' Association can't actively support all its members and at the same time provide services for a publication which discriminates against minorities.

[Fournier]

I’m not a Saint writer any more, though I was for some years, and I have to say I’m pretty shocked by this move from the union. In fact I’m surprised that more people aren’t standing up for our only real student rag.

I’ve got the last few issues, and I’m struggling to be offended - the declaration from the Union President was unacceptably vague as to the real accusations. The ‘welsh’ problem seems to refer to the declaration (possibly wrong) that a ‘conservative welsh group called Christian Voice’ protested outside student play Corpus Christi. The dyslexic problem is no doubt the quote from a party-goer in last weeks ‘Uber’ section that he was ‘so drunk I’m dyslexic.’ The gay problem I assume is still principally the photo caption from ‘Halo’ last year, describing kissing males as ‘faggots’.

With the exception of this last mistake (for which the Saint took full responsibility, even pulling the Halo section in response) these are pretty minor issues of poor judgement in what is a big paper. Even if it’s offensive, is it really ‘discrimination’? It’s not as if they’re writing articles all about how much they hate Welsh people – it’s captions and quotes people are getting upset about.

Anybody who’s worked on The Saint knows just how many people are involved in pulling an issue together. This isn’t some clique in a dark room sniggering – there are writers for six separate sections, photographers, layout staff and even a business team. To shut down the entire paper because of careless editorial decisions by one or two sub editors is unforgivable.

So is that really why they’re chucking them out? At the risk of stirring it up, what seems more obvious to me is not the offensiveness of the last few issues, but the fierce criticism of the Union. Look at some stories: ‘Union Chair Denounces Sabbaticals’; ‘Bewildering SRC voting process angers students’; an editorial moaning about union bureaucracy; a campaign reminding us, as if we didn’t already know, that ‘the bop is crap’. Union officials have never been particularly pleased with facing this kind of criticism – you wouldn’t expect them to be. But it’s one thing for them to throw out The Saint because they disagree with their reporting, and quite another to cynically use important discrimination issues as an excuse…

And finally, what do you think will go in the Saint office instead? I’m only guessing, but I wouldn’t bet against it being either the new student radio station – if it ever gets off the ground – or the union’s new online magazine The Signal. The Saint isn’t always brilliant, and sometimes it’s rubbish – but it is still consistently recognised as the best student paper in Scotland, and on its very best days it’s as good as anything produced at a British university. If I’m right, then destroying an established, award winning paper for two fledgling projects of their own seems, quite honestly, appalling.

As I said, I’m not involved with the Saint, so these comments are completely my own. If you think I’m talking complete crap then let me know, but I’d be keen to hear more posts from people who know where The Saint will go from here.

[Humphrey]

Hmmm, I smell a conspiracy

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[harmless loony]

With the additions of the hefty posts the plot thickens.....I must be very fed up of my research project if I'm intrigued by this issue.....

[Al]

Incidentally, does anyone know if any or all of the books sold in the Union bookshop are vetted for any content that might be seen as "discriminatory"? I hope that they are. I would hate for there to be any accusations of double-standards...

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[JM]

Hmm - The union plays dirty (again)! and cant face criticism (again)! So does anyone know if The Saint will still continue? and if so where?
I would suggest rebelling or petitioning but then i'd just get chucked out the uni so perhaps a petition would be the peaceful approach.
To all "officials" or any important dudes reading this - just expressing my opinion - your all lovely people and your uni is great, really...i'm too young to die!!!!

[Ewan Husami]

[s]Fournier wrote on 22:45, 15th Dec 2004:
...To shut down the entire paper because of careless editorial decisions by one or two sub editors is unforgivable.


The Saint hasn't been shut down. They just aren't allowed to use the office in the union any more.


So is that really why they’re chucking them out?


They were denied permission to use the office because they have repeatedly failed to comply with the union's equal opportunities policy.

At the risk of stirring it up, what seems more obvious to me is not the offensiveness of the last few issues, but the fierce criticism of the Union.

Any criticism of the union (be it positive or negative) is fair, as long as it is accurate.
The article "Stop the Bop" had 5 main points against the "bop".
4 of these points were unjustified (for example, the request to rid Venue1 of the smell - 800+ people dancing, drinking and smoking are likely to create a distinctive aroma; the only way to avoid it is to prevent people from entering), and suggested that the writer hadn't been to Venue1 at all this semester. Point 5 was actually praising the union for encouraging live music!


I'm sure the union welcomes criticism (after all, how are they to know what people actually want?), but if you're going to criticise something/someone, then you should do a bit of research first.

Look at some stories: ‘Union Chair Denounces Sabbaticals’; ‘Bewildering SRC voting process angers students’; an editorial moaning about union bureaucracy; a campaign reminding us, as if we didn’t already know, that ‘the bop is crap’. Union officials have never been particularly pleased with facing this kind of criticism – you wouldn’t expect them to be. But it’s one thing for them to throw out The Saint because they disagree with their reporting, and quite another to cynically use important discrimination issues as an excuse…

The union is a business like any other - why should it support an organisation which puts it down and presents it in a bad light?
The Saint has been biting the hand that fed it for years now - I'm surprised that the union has taken this long to withdraw its support.

And finally, what do you think will go in the Saint office instead? I’m only guessing, but I wouldn’t bet against it being either the new student radio station – if it ever gets off the ground – or the union’s new online magazine The Signal. The Saint isn’t always brilliant, and sometimes it’s rubbish – but it is still consistently recognised as the best student paper in Scotland, and on its very best days it’s as good as anything produced at a British university. If I’m right, then destroying an established, award winning paper for two fledgling projects of their own seems, quite honestly, appalling.

What's wrong with the union using their own building for their own projects? The Saint didn't pay rent for the office, so why shouldn't the union use its space for more productive purposes?
There has been call for a student radio project for years - now that plans are underway for starting a radio station, you seem to criticise it before it's even started.

The Signal may grow to be as successful as the Saint once was - doesn't it deserve its own office? After all, it's a magazine which will undoubtedly support the union.

If the Saint is worthy of all its awards, then surely it will be able to survive this lack of office space, and rely on its "award winning" standard of writing.

As I said, I’m not involved with the Saint, so these comments are completely my own. If you think I’m talking complete crap then let me know, but I’d be keen to hear more posts from people who know where The Saint will go from here.


I don't think you're talking crap, but you don't seem to have picked up on what's actually happened, or why.
Perhaps you misunderstood the press release that the union issued - have another look at it. The link's at the top of this thread

[Ewan Husami]

[s]JM wrote on 23:36, 15th Dec 2004:
Hmm - The union plays dirty (again)! and cant face criticism (again)! So does anyone know if The Saint will still continue? and if so where?

How is the union playing dirty? See my post above for my reasons for supporting the union's decision.

I would suggest rebelling or petitioning but then i'd just get chucked out the uni so perhaps a petition would be the peaceful approach.


By all means rebel or petition. The student body as a whole approves of the equal opportunities policy. Is your petition going to request that the union should help organisations to discriminate against minorities? I wonder how successful that would be.


Al - Good point about the bookshop in the union (I don't think that Blackwells is a subsidiary of the union though).

[flarewearer]

If the saint had printed a picture of a black person with the caption underneath reading "N***er", there would have been an outcry, no? Well, to many people, reffering to gay men as "Faggots" is in the same league. It's not a light hearted joke, it's not justifiable, it's not even funny. This sort of thing has to be actively discouraged, as it is simply not acceptable. Go Union!

[hr]...Just like Liberace, I will return to haunt you with peculiar piano riffs...

[Student Support Officer]

I would like reiterate that the descision to not grant the Saint permission to use the building has nothing to do with the way that the Saint handles the Union. I actually rather like the idea of a newspaper holding the Association responsible, as someone has to.

I have already outlined the reasons previously why this action was taken.

[Mr Lovejoy]

I find myself in the interesting position of being a flatmete of, on the one hand, the Student Support Officer, Dave Vinton, and, on the other hand, a recent reviews editor of The Saint. I can certainly understand the Union's position; as a body which aims to promote equal opportunities, it cannot let a group use its premises and its equipment to print material which is contrary to this policy and which is offensive to members of the Union, i.e. various sections of the student population such as gays, dyslexics ans the Welsh. I am also aware that the Union gave The Saint a lot of time before banning it from its premises. It is not as if they were thrown out without prior warning.

However, I think the Union has overreacted by throwing The Saint out. The comments which have caused such offence were certainly tasteless, but they were not aimed at inciting anti-Welsh, or homophobic feeling. A throwaway, irreverent comment is a different thing altogether from a concerted attack on a praticular group. Besides, The Saint has run features on such things as fair trade and facilitating disabled students, so it can hardly be accused of ignoring equal opportunities.

I guess that my main concern is less that The Saint has been thrown out of the Union, and more about the fact that this means that we will have no independent student-run newspaper worthy of the name now, simply the anodine rubbish that the Union produces and calls a magazine.

[pelopidas]

[s]Mr Lovejoy wrote on 04:06, 16th Dec 2004:
I guess that my main concern is less that The Saint has been thrown out of the Union, and more about the fact that this means that we will have no independent student-run newspaper worthy of the name now, simply the anodine rubbish that the Union produces and calls a magazine.


The Saint is complete Pap. The articles are a bunch of meandering rants written by people almost solely concerned with getting their names in print.

Id rather spend 50p on a tin of Baked Beans than the Saint.

[lueez]

you can buy more than one can of beans for 50p...

[Al]

"I don't think that Blackwells is a subsidiary of the union though"

Neither is The Saint. It is an independent student activity which rents office space from the Union. There is absolutely no reason for them to conform to the Association equal opportunities policy. That being the case, I don't see how the Association can turn around and throw The Saint out. Sure, they can withdraw free use of Association facilities but evicting them from the building? It not only makes the Union officers look petty and heavy-handed, but it sets a very dangerous precedent with regards other areas of Association business.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Ewan Husami]

[s]Al wrote on 08:31, 16th Dec 2004:
[i]"I don't think that Blackwells is a subsidiary of the union though"

Neither is The Saint. It is an independent student activity which rents office space from the Union. There is absolutely no reason for them to conform to the Association equal opportunities policy. That being the case, I don't see how the Association can turn around and throw The Saint out. Sure, they can withdraw free use of Association facilities but evicting them from the building? It not only makes the Union officers look petty and heavy-handed, but it sets a very dangerous precedent with regards other areas of Association business.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.
[/i]

Sorry Al, I think you misunderstood me - I was referring to you calling Blackwells the "Union Bookshop". Meant to be a joke. I still haven't learned from the mistakes of other users; to avoid sarcasm or humour. Ooops.

Earlier when I said the Saint didn't pay rent - I've since learned that they should have paid rent, but hadn't done for some time.
In fact, while I'm on the subject of the Saint's finances, is it true that the current editor contributed a large sum from her own pocket in order to get the latest issue printed?

Don't forget that the Saint has been in trouble with the union before - this isn't the first time they've printed things they shouldn't've.

And for the last time (aimed at everyone who says otherwise) the union aren't shutting down the Saint. They're just stopping them from using the union's publications office (its official title).

[rubbermuffin]

[s]Mr Comedy wrote on 17:40, 15th Dec 2004:
"I was so drunk I was dyslexic" - the last issue of the Saint.

I don't like the comparison of a learning disability (which I have) to alcohol abuse.
That is extremely offensive to me, and I can't support a paper that thinks that alcohol abuse is similar to a real and pertinent learning disability.


Oh come on this is ridiculous. Clearly the person was suggesting that they couldn't spell properly because they were so drunk. If you find it offensive don't buy the paper. It is not exactly inciting hatred of dyslexics, nor do I think it is encouraging a view of them as alcoholics, or belittling dyslexia as a learning disability. And if the union found it so awful then they should have made sure the person that wrote it was not allowed to write again.

You will say that it is the editor's responsibility to check this out but considering it was her first issue and she is actually a full-time student, not an editor, I think this is a bit unfair.

The Union is being petty as always.

[hr]
'When I was young PC meant Police Constable / Now I can't seem to tell the difference'

[rubbermuffin]

[s]The Bigot's Bigot wrote on 18:29, 15th Dec 2004:
Looks like the Saint has committed speech, thought and word crime. Oh dear.

Why does everybody think they have a right not to be offended? Surely in a free country the right to be protected is that of being able to offend.


Totally totally agree.

[hr]
'When I was young PC meant Police Constable / Now I can't seem to tell the difference'