Rainbow Flag at the Quad

[ct3012]

How did whoever did that manage to get it up there?!?

[RandomMusings]

Magic?
A ladder?
The wind?

Seriously, what actually happened? I saw some people's facebook status mentioning it this morning, but have no idea what it's all about..... How high up the tower did this banner get? Anyone got any photos to post?

[ct3012]

It's more confusing because it's not like they got a ladder and taped a banner to the tower, but actually flew a flag...

[Jormungand]

Magic?
A ladder?
The wind?

Seriously, what actually happened? I saw some people's facebook status mentioning it this morning, but have no idea what it's all about..... How high up the tower did this banner get? Anyone got any photos to post?

It was put up there by the LGBT (with the agreement of the University) to celebrate LGBT History Month. There's a board about it in front of the entrance to Sallies.

[ct3012]

Magic?
A ladder?
The wind?

Seriously, what actually happened? I saw some people's facebook status mentioning it this morning, but have no idea what it's all about..... How high up the tower did this banner get? Anyone got any photos to post?

It was put up there by the LGBT (with the agreement of the University) to celebrate LGBT History Month. There's a board about it in front of the entrance to Sallies.

That's a bit disappointing... I was hoping it was some sort of dramatic coup-attempt. Or at least some form of elaborate prank.

[Ruru Hedgehog]

The fact that this flag is flying on top of St Salvator's chapel makes me smile.
Can't say I noticed it, though... I don't generally look up in that direction.

[RandomMusings]

Magic?
A ladder?
The wind?

Seriously, what actually happened? I saw some people's facebook status mentioning it this morning, but have no idea what it's all about..... How high up the tower did this banner get? Anyone got any photos to post?

It was put up there by the LGBT (with the agreement of the University) to celebrate LGBT History Month. There's a board about it in front of the entrance to Sallies.

That's a bit disappointing... I was hoping it was some sort of dramatic coup-attempt. Or at least some form of elaborate prank.

Yeah, that is a little disappointing. Fair play for doing it though. I'm guessing there were a number of health and safety considerations before it was put up there....

[Senethro]

Does the LGBT movement have much history in the UK? Did they have a stonewall?

[Lid]

Does the LGBT movement have much history in the UK? Did they have a stonewall?

It's only been legal in the UK outside of the Palace of Westminster and the Clapham Common Designated Area (CCDA) since June, but it's really taken off, apparently.

[Delts]

I noticed it earlier and wondered wtf. Once again the sinner answers all

[Andy Monkey B]

Although apparently Jamie Walker was on holiday and didn't know about it being there.

[macgamer]

Given the way LGBTsoc treated him and the Chaplaincy last year I cannot imagine that he would be overly enthusiastic, especially if he was not consulted.

[jollytiddlywink]

Given the way LGBTsoc treated him and the Chaplaincy last year I cannot imagine that he would be overly enthusiastic, especially if he was not consulted.

The way they treated him? You mustn't believe everything you read in the Saint, certainly the articles last year about what might be termed Mansefieldgate. Ironically enough, the next issue of the Saint announced proudly that St Andrews had been named the number two LGBT-friendly university in Europe!

[Jormungand]

For those of us who weren't here last year, could I ask what 'Mansefieldgate' is and who Jamie Walker is?

[starsandsparkles]

Rev. Dr. Jamie Walker is the University Chaplain. I think the short version of the story is that LGBT used to hold their meetings in the chaplaincy and basically took advantage of it.

Apparently the flag was supposed to go up over lower college hall, not above the chapel as only the University flag is allowed to be flown from the tower.

[Delts]

For those of us who weren't here last year, could I ask what 'Mansefieldgate' is and who Jamie Walker is?

Hell, I was here and know bugger all about this.

[Andy Monkey B]

Given the way LGBTsoc treated him and the Chaplaincy last year I cannot imagine that he would be overly enthusiastic, especially if he was not consulted.

The way they treated him? You mustn't believe everything you read in the Saint, certainly the articles last year about what might be termed Mansefieldgate. Ironically enough, the next issue of the Saint announced proudly that St Andrews had been named the number two LGBT-friendly university in Europe!

As I wasn't there during the incident, I don't particularly know what happened. How did the reported incident differ from the Saint's report?

As I remember the story was of an LGBT night which eventually ended with indecent photos ending up on facebook. While the night started in the Chaplaincy, did the indecency not occur in a flat party following it? I can't remember the Saint article (and the saint online website still thinks it's 2004), and so I can't remember what the Chaplaincy's actual complaint against the Society was.

So I'm a bit useless, any more reliable information?

[macgamer]

The reason why such a to-do was made about the situation was regarding the contravention of the rules http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/students/policy/Chaplaincypolicyandguidelines/Mansefield/ governing the use of the Mansefield Chaplaincy.

Excessive drinking of alcohol is not permitted, nor any form of pornography or nudity, nor gambling or games of chance.

Dear Editor,

I would like to express a few thoughts in response to Miss Kathryn Robinson's Viewpoint article in the last issue: 'LGBT: just a gay ole time?'

Miss Robinson expressed her confusion as to why there was a scandal, qualifying this later by suggesting the events that took place in Mansefield were 'typical' and a 'microcosm' of student life and societies in St Andrews - I should hope not!

What other society that uses the Mansefield feels it has the right to flagrantly contravene the house rules by using 'alcohol, other stimulants and nudity'? Why should this be inevitable? These as the photographs suggested, sound like the ingredients of a sex orgy, not something I think typical of society events in St Andrews.

The University is not spying on LGBTSoc when they post photographic evidence of their misdemeanours on Facebook for all to see and when one of their committee feels compelled to seek the counsel and intervention of the Students' Association and University. Miss Robinson explicitly admonished this action.

LGBTsoc supposedly aims to support LGBT persons and so this public endorsement of rather risky behaviour that provoked a member to complain anonymously, suggests a severe failure in this respect.

This has nothing, as Miss Robinson implies, to do with their shared sexuality and everything to do with decency and a lack of respect for themselves and the Chaplaincy team, which extended them every welcome.

In light of this, LGBTSoc is not fit for purpose and surely if anything can be described as a scandal this can.

[Haunted]

Well fair play if there was indeed boozing and buggery happening in the building.
Someone above said this happened in a private flat, surely one can tell by looking at the background in the offending pics whether this is true or not?

[jollytiddlywink]

The reason why such a to-do was made about the situation was regarding the contravention of the rules http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/students/policy/Chaplaincypolicyandguidelines/Mansefield/ governing the use of the Mansefield Chaplaincy.

Excessive drinking of alcohol is not permitted, nor any form of pornography or nudity, nor gambling or games of chance.

Dear Editor,

I would like to express a few thoughts in response to Miss Kathryn Robinson's Viewpoint article in the last issue: 'LGBT: just a gay ole time?'

Miss Robinson expressed her confusion as to why there was a scandal, qualifying this later by suggesting the events that took place in Mansefield were 'typical' and a 'microcosm' of student life and societies in St Andrews - I should hope not!

What other society that uses the Mansefield feels it has the right to flagrantly contravene the house rules by using 'alcohol, other stimulants and nudity'? Why should this be inevitable? These as the photographs suggested, sound like the ingredients of a sex orgy, not something I think typical of society events in St Andrews.

The University is not spying on LGBTSoc when they post photographic evidence of their misdemeanours on Facebook for all to see and when one of their committee feels compelled to seek the counsel and intervention of the Students' Association and University. Miss Robinson explicitly admonished this action.

LGBTsoc supposedly aims to support LGBT persons and so this public endorsement of rather risky behaviour that provoked a member to complain anonymously, suggests a severe failure in this respect.

This has nothing, as Miss Robinson implies, to do with their shared sexuality and everything to do with decency and a lack of respect for themselves and the Chaplaincy team, which extended them every welcome.

In light of this, LGBTSoc is not fit for purpose and surely if anything can be described as a scandal this can.

It seems relevant to point out that the event on the evening in question was LGBTsoc's effort to find their contestant for Mr St Andrews. Various people were very upset that this involved (as the Saint had a picture of) a man without a shirt on! Yes, the contestants had alcohol. Whether 'nudity' includes shirtless men is probably a point of debate, as is the precise definition of 'excessive drinking.' Doubtless, decisions on what is and isn't violation of the rules were in the hands of the Chaplaincy, which is perfectly reasonable.
But points of debate like that, I would suggest, hardly add up to what the letter-writer called flagrant abuse. In any case, no preliminary round of Mr St Andrews (or the main contest itself) I have ever attended, either in halls or for societies, hasn't involved shirtless men and alcohol.
But those two points (shirtless-ness and drinking) were the core of the Saint article--the rest, as I recall, was composed largely of rumour and heresay, most of which seemed to trace to parties in private residences where gay/lesbian people were present, and had nothing to do with the Mansefield. The letter above, aside from being full of the kind of righteous indignation typical of this kind of storm in a teacup, seems to quote the article in reference to 'alcohol, other stimulants and nudity.' I'm not sure where the 'stimulants' part came from. Certainly there were no drugs involved, otherwise it would have been a legitimate fuss, police involved, and so on.
And Haunted: where did you get the idea that "boozing and buggery" were going on? Or do you mistakenly think that's all gay people ever do? (because in that case, you clearly don't understand lesbians at all!)