Gordon Ramsay is a loose cannon and WAY too controversial

[lethe]

This is Earth calling St Andrews. I see from the poll we're thinking of electing Gordon Ramsay to the Rectorship. Interesting. We seem to want him to chair the highest university decision-making body and to be the representative of the students. And maybe if it all works out we might even get to meet him. Then we might be important too. Wow! OK, so he's not going to suddenly become the Principal's best friend. What's in it for him to do that? But what's in it for him to serve the student body either? It seems like an ego trip to me.

He's (allegedly) sexist, "saying women should be kept out of professional kitchens" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1448742.stm ), and that young women "can't cook to save their lives" ( http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.j ... xhome.html ).

He's out of touch with student life (see his £100 pizza - http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/food ... 318695.ece ).

He's arrogant and insensitive, laughing at having fed meat to a vegetarian: "would Ramsay have played the same prank on a Muslim? I mean, they have all those silly ideas about faith and not wanting to eat pork products and everything, but they're human - like Ramsay, they could eat Parma ham if they would only stop being so 'girly' and 'precious', it's not like they're going to 'come out in a rash'" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0, ... 68,00.html ). "Would Gordon find it equally amusing if an anaphylactic customer died at the table due to eating nuts?" ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content ... xml&site=5 ).

He's (allegedly) a hypocrite. "Nick [Nairn] sticks his face on any product available and goes and talks to the Women’s Institute" ( http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news ... _page.html ) when Tesco.com will show Gordon Ramsay-branded products but not Nick Nairn. And Ramsay has even allegedly repackaged £1 Australian cans of passionfruit for £15 ( http://www.theage.com.au/news/Epicure/E ... 20331.html ).

AND, this is the Gordon Ramsay that cashed in on being a chef and turned his entire profession against him ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 761363.stm ) with lines like "Ninety-nine per cent of the chefs in our country are so jumped up."( http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ ... m=storyrhs )

In fact, he's such an unreliable loose cannon that he cost his producers in America $125,000 in damages for an alleged fight on TV, that was, luckily for them, settled out of court ( http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... 1305782004 ). His response? "The problem with Yanks is they are just wimps."

A perfect Rector, I'm sure.

[hr]
[s]This message was brought to you by the word "allegedly", which hopefully saves this student from being sued by Gordon Ramsay's legendary legal team.[/s]

[Bryn]

There's also the small point that he'll probably never set foot in St Andrews because he's a hugely busy man and doesn't particularly care about us when he can get paid thousands or millions of pounds to go and shoot a TV series in America.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Duggeh]

Sounds to me from all of that that:

1)Hes a Do-er, gets things done.
2)Is outspoken, doesnt take bullshit
3)Has passion, believes in what he believes in.
4)Has got balls larger than grapefruit
5)Deserves a pint for being fuckign awesome
6)That you seek to badmouth one candidate yet dont serve up any alternative, who is it that you support and why are they better than Gordon, im sure i could dig up stuff about how Pepper is a filthy liberal hippy if i were so inclinded. To badmouth people in the immature way you have is simply laughable.
7)At the end of the day, students want someone they can identify with in an elected posision such as this, and given that Gordon is the only one with nearly enough of a fame factor to have any personality clout, he gets the popular vote.
8)I need my bed.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.macintyre42.plus.com/images/tb2-100.jpg
Duggeh: Master Of Ceremonies
[s]http://www.macintyre42.plus.com[/s]

[ezra]

1)Hes a Do-er, gets things done.
2)Is outspoken, doesnt take bullshit
3)Has passion, believes in what he believes in.
4)Has got balls larger than grapefruit
5)Deserves a pint for being fuckign awesome
6)That you seek to badmouth one candidate yet dont serve up any alternative, who is it that you support and why are they better than Gordon, im sure i could dig up stuff about how Pepper is a filthy liberal hippy if i were so inclinded. To badmouth people in the immature way you have is simply laughable.
7)At the end of the day, students want someone they can identify with in an elected posision such as this, and given that Gordon is the only one with nearly enough of a fame factor to have any personality clout, he gets the popular vote.
8)I need my bed.

I hate to rebut you, Duggeh, but:

1. Being a 'do-er' is of no intrinsic value; you've got to have reasonable motives, and we have no evidence that Ramsay does. [George Bush is a 'do-er'; it's hardly an accolade]
2. Ditto for being outspoken: doesn't help unless you've got something worth saying.
3. Ditto for passion; Idi Amin believed in what he believed in [come to think of it, who doesn't believe in what they believe in?]
4. Ditto for the size of his balls (isn't there a word for men whose balls are disproportionately larger than their penis?)
5. Ditto for being 'awesome'; I'm sure that Ghengis Khan was 'awesome'. Wouldn't vote him in for Rector, tho'. (or maybe I would . . .)
6. Pointing out failings of someone's character, with references for every case, hardly counts as immature badmouthing. Looks more like astute criticism to me. Nor do you need to present alternatives in order to engage in criticism; you don't need to come up with an alternative to Hitler in order to call him a cunt.
7. Students here can identify with Ramsay? That's either false or worrying. Do people here really have that much in common with his brand of unrestrained arrogance and intolerance?

Don't get me wrong: I'm probably going to vote for Ramsay, simply because I think it'd be entertaining to put him in the same room as the University council. Whether he'll ever have the time to haul his carnivorous arse up to Fife at the appropriate moment, of course, remains to be seen.

[lethe]

If you want an alternative, I'd say Simon Pepper (and yes, I know he's an OBE, you don't have to keep waving it around) or Martin Passmore. Of the two I've only met Martin, and I know he's a genuine guy and not on any kind of ego-trip. I'm guessing Simon Pepper isn't too.

Ramsay might have a higher profile, but he's a loose cannon - take a look at the last time a Rector shot his mouth off: http://www.thesinner.net/messageboard-v ... hread=9202.

If I thought Gordon Ramsay would actually turn up to shout at the university types I might actually swallow my objections and vote for him, but do you really think he'll show up for boring meetings?

As it is, he is NOT the sort of person I want representing me.

[Cain]

Quoting lethe from 04:05, 24th Oct 2005
If I thought Gordon Ramsay would actually turn up to shout at the university types I might actually swallow my objections and vote for him, but do you really think he'll show up for boring meetings?

from what he's been saying to his campaign manager... you would think so.

This is what we call the "horns effect"; where you find something that you dislike about one person and amplify it and apply it to everything that they do. Gordon sells a £100 pizza - must be too up himself to attend meetings. Gordon is arrogant and insensitive - won't want to shout at university types.

tell us why Pepper is better.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[Tweedle-Dum]

I'm sorry to say that having visited Simon Pepper's campaign website, its creator needn't have bothered. It contains almost no detail whatsoever on what Mr Pepper is to do, other than support "Ethical Investment", which can be rather seen as unethical, Simon claims that money's moral obligation is not to the students, to provide high returns for a University currently selling off assets such as Hamilton Hall to get by, but to unspecified ideals in which we do not invest in companies with "bad conditions for workers" or "unethical products". Placing ANY legal investment out of the grasp of the university limits its autonomy, and thus profits made on its assets, thus "Ethical Investment" is unethical and harms student welfare.

So in conclusion, Pepper's only policy is to harm those who support him.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Looks like someone and Google have been working overtime on a smear campaign. How long did this take? 5 minutes? And presenting newspaper opinion as fact? Laughable.

Dear me, has negative campaigning sunken so far? OH GNOES ONE CANDIDATE IS BAD BUT HERE IS A GOOD ONE!

For fuck's sake - credit your fellow students with more intelligence than yourself and lacking even the testicular fortitude to exclude the word "allegedly"... if thy sword of truth is so righteous - why hide behind thine shield like a cowardly whelp?

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[lethe]

Quoting Cain from 07:05, 24th Oct 2005
Gordon sells a £100 pizza - must be too up himself to attend meetings.

And that is what they call a straw man - misrepresenting an argument to shoot it down more easily. I said his food (and by implication lifestyle) makes him unlikely to be able to understand students, NOT that it would make him too up himself to attend meetings.

He might show up. He might not. But I don't see any evidence either way other than the words of a campaign manager. And I don't trust hacks.

Gordon is arrogant and insensitive - won't want to shout at university types.
Of course he'll want to shout at university types. He wants to shout at everyone. He (allegedly) starts fights, he shoots his mouth off against all and sundry and he sticks two fingers up at people's (ok, so 'only' vegetarian) beliefs.

I don't have to say why anyone is better to say why someone is crap. I don't know if any of the candidates are better. I know Clement Freud is better. He's been regularly to events held by a fair cross-section of St Andrews, maintained a high public profile, helped a bit when needed, and sent quite a bit of money the way of the students. That's a good Rector. When he ran, sure he was old, but he had also been a decent Rector before elsewhere. And as an ex-MP he doubly knew about the sort of requirements of the role. But does a TV chef?

[DrAlex]

Quoting lethe from 10:12, 24th Oct 2005

Of course he'll want to shout at university types. He wants to shout at everyone.

I don't have to say why anyone is better to say why someone is crap.

As for your first point, if your basing that on what you've seen on television, do the entire community a favour and don't vote. Hands up who thinks Ramsay would be half as famous if he didn't drop the f-bomb so much in his shows?

Your second point makes me laugh, and goes right back to what PTen said: Opinion is not fact. If you think Ramsay is crap, you can present your evidence and then present your case for someone better. What you've done here just makes you look like a tool.

Also, you've posted on 14 different threads, you've been here since 2003, let's learn the tags.

[hr]

http://standrews.thefacebook.com/profil ... 71d2255dff

[Bryn]

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 07:38, 24th Oct 2005
I'm sorry to say that having visited Simon Pepper's campaign website, its creator needn't have bothered. It contains almost no detail whatsoever on what Mr Pepper is to do, other than support "Ethical Investment", which can be rather seen as unethical, Simon claims that money's moral obligation is not to the students, to provide high returns for a University currently selling off assets such as Hamilton Hall to get by, but to unspecified ideals in which we do not invest in companies with "bad conditions for workers" or "unethical products". Placing ANY legal investment out of the grasp of the university limits its autonomy, and thus profits made on its assets, thus "Ethical Investment" is unethical and harms student welfare.

So in conclusion, Pepper's only policy is to harm those who support him.

Why do people always assume that ethical investment means that you lose money? The Students' Association is currently gaining substantially on their ethical investments. Besides, the university has literally millions of pounds that it's just NOT channelling towards students. In fact it's unclear where they are channelling it at all. With lobbying from a decent, influential, dedicated source the university could manage their funds in a more student oriented way. We'd get more money and the university could still be ethical.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Bryn]

Quoting DrAlex from 10:35, 24th Oct 2005As for your first point, if your basing that on what you've seen on television, do the entire community a favour and don't vote. Hands up who thinks Ramsay would be half as famous if he didn't drop the f-bomb so much in his shows?

What are you basing your opinion of him on?

*Gasp* - don't tell me you've met him!

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[exnihilo]

This is all very fun.

For what it's worth, Andrew Neil wasn't always PC. He's enormously wealthy. He was extremely busy. He's a famous face.

He was also a good Rector.

Gordon will be too.

Oh, and he will be around to do the job, he just won't be mooching about day-in day-out, there'd be nothing for him to do. Well, I suppose he could send highly dodgy mass emails to the student body - but I'm not sure they'd like that.

[Webbie]

But why?

Cos he says the fuck a lot?

Cos he can cook a mean pizza?

Cos he has a good fashion sense?

Cos he puts a pencil on his ear which makes him look like he's working harder? (it does work, i do it sometimes)

Cos he called Edwina Currie a diseased bitch?

Cos he's on the front page of the BBC news website right now quoted as saying women can't cook to save their lives?

Cos he's got so many policies based on communication with the students?

Cos you say so?

As far as a can see, the entire Ramsey campaign rests on 3 things

1) he's rich

2) he's famous

3) he'll "fucking" fight for you

Based on that, i don't think he has my vote

[ezra]

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 07:38, 24th Oct 2005
Placing ANY legal investment out of the grasp of the university limits its autonomy, and thus profits made on its assets, thus "Ethical Investment" is unethical and harms student welfare.

No offence, tweedle-dum, but this is wank. Ethical investment is an exercise of autonomy, not a restriction of it. Autonomy - that's 'self-rule', in case you haven't checked - is a matter of people deciding what they want to do (& why), and then going ahead and doing it. If it's something airy-fairy and 'moral' like 'ethical' 'investment' [/irony], then so be it. Promoting the interests of the student body hardly counts as harming their welfare, does it? Or perhaps you missed the obvious point that it's in our interests not to be associated with BAT, GlaxoSmithKline, etc. You seem to think that student welfare is entirely a matter of university profit. God knows why.

Incidentally, when I was an undergraduate the student body came very close to going on rent strike in order to push for ethical investment. Do you really think people are likely to go to so much time and trouble to damage their own welfare?

[Andy]

Quoting lethe from 02:32, 24th Oct 2005
In fact, he's such an unreliable loose cannon that he cost his producers in America $125,000 in damages for an alleged fight on TV, that was, luckily for them, settled out of court ( http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... 1305782004 ). His response? "The problem with Yanks is they are just wimps."

[hr]

He does have a point about the yanks being wimps, they do seem to be incapable of sorting out personal differences without someone getting sued or having councilling.

[Guest]

how do you 'allegedly' start a fight on tv? I would have thought by the very nature of tv there would be conclusive proof one way or the other.

[bubba]

Does no one seem to remember that Clement was a very famous TV Chef, possibly the first... I also remember him being very outspoken about Americans...

[hr]

Who is John Galt?

[The Dude]

Quoting bubba from 13:34, 24th Oct 2005
Does no one seem to remember that Clement was a very famous TV Chef, possibly the first... I also remember him being very outspoken about Americans...

[hr]

Who is John Galt?

No one should slight Julia Child like that.

[Tweedle-Dum]

Quoting ezra from 12:22, 24th Oct 2005

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 07:38, 24th Oct 2005
Placing ANY legal investment out of the grasp of the university limits its autonomy, and thus profits made on its assets, thus "Ethical Investment" is unethical and harms student welfare.

No offence, tweedle-dum, but this is wank. Ethical investment is an exercise of autonomy, not a restriction of it. Autonomy - that's 'self-rule', in case you haven't checked - is a matter of people deciding what they want to do (& why), and then going ahead and doing it. If it's something airy-fairy and 'moral' like 'ethical' 'investment' [/irony], then so be it. Promoting the interests of the student body hardly counts as harming their welfare, does it? Or perhaps you missed the obvious point that it's in our interests not to be associated with BAT, GlaxoSmithKline, etc. You seem to think that student welfare is entirely a matter of university profit. God knows why.

Incidentally, when I was an undergraduate the student body came very close to going on rent strike in order to push for ethical investment. Do you really think people are likely to go to so much time and trouble to damage their own welfare?

The best way to use the Universiy's money is to invest it for highest returns in order to ensure the best service to students. No limitation other than the law should be placed on this. If the "Ethical" sector, as Bryn points out, currently outperforms the "unethical", then at this time it is the better investment. But as soon as GlaxoSmithKline starts making good returns, it is in the interest of the students to invest in that.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.