Quoting from 17:13, 19th May 2005Quoting Laura from 14:18, 19th May 2005
It was simply several members of the board of ten lending a hand to Simon and to the University. I'm sorry that so many of you feel put out for it not being advertised, but it simply wasn't considered a meeting of the society, and we couldn't have seated you even if you had wanted to come.
That sounds reasonable enough, but given it was apparantly discussed at board of ten meetings several times, we can be forgiven for thinking that it was hardly only a couple of people organising it in their spare time. I don't think it ridiculous to say that the membership should be kept upto speed with what the board of ten are up to.
Who said a couple of people were organising it in their spare time? No, it's not ridiculous that you should be kept up to speed regarding what is going on, but that's why meetings are open and why the minutes will get posted. What is ridiculous is people thinking they have a right to be a part of everything all the time when society money isn't being used and there is something being done for a particular group of people on the request of the university, after which, other people won't be able to fit in the room.
Laura, I didn't say it made it an old boys drinking club, i said that it was an old-boys-drinking club way of running things, ie cliquey, there is a difference and I don't think the line merited the aggressive and illogical response (who said anything about alcohol in the senate room?).
It wasn't illogical- you in no way explained why it was that you thought it made us like a 'drinking club', clearly what you meant to say was that it made us look cliquey. Which is wrong- and it's wrong because as I have stated, there were no particular invites extended to people, there were no 'chosen few', it was simply the people who had expressed an interest in helping the students all week, the people who had helped organise the debate and a few of the friends of the people that were speaking to give them moral support. I didn't ask anyone to come at all, and as I've said, the ones who did turn up when asked by the speakers were extremely lucky to get seated- we considered putting a ban on anyone attending whatsoever.
I don't think that it unreasonable that people express:
a) Sadness that they we unable to go to what must have been an extremely interesting event because they weren't told about it.
b) Annoyance the University will let a group of visitors use the Senate room, but not the UDS
It IS unreasonable that people express sadness that they weren't told about the event, because as I have mentioned several times, there isn't any way they could have been seated in there and it wasn't a UDS event, and they had no entitlement to come along, and none of our money funded it. It was a university thing that I agreed to help out with, and the board agreed to help out with.
As for the Senate room, I suppose I am going to get widely attacked for this- but I have no intention of attempting to ever get that room back for pre debate drinks. It's an important room to the university, and they take ANY group's use of it very seriously. They kept a watchful eye on us even when the Foreighn Office was there. I don't want the society to be let loose in their again, unless it is for something like that. The psychology foyer is a much more suitable venue, which we will be trying to get back. They stopped us using it because we were irresponsible, and quite frankly, there are several members of the UDS that I certainly don't want to vouch for with drinks in their hands in rooms like that.
As has been discussed, for things like IV finals, it may be possible to get hold of the room if the Association President was favourable and someone like Alistair Work was prepared to babysit us. It's not completely out of bounds for the UDS- simply for functions that involve lots of people and drink. Which is reasonable, considering the things that are in there, and what happened last time.
Please don't say that they would have known about it if they went to the board of ten; the purpose of having a committee is so that everyone doesn't have to get together everytime something needs to be decided
And please don't predict what I will say or tell me what to say- the reason I brought up the board thing was simply because there were literally just a few spare seats and they were the ones that got them. They took an interest in what was going on at the time so they got to go along. And before you say that that isn't fair to other members, I will yet again point out that no one has a platform to stand on as regards their right to come to this event being taken away, because they simply didn't have one.
I realise that when I post to clarify things like this, people think that I am aggressive towards certain members of the UDS- it isn't that, it's just that if people complain about something, and I post what the actual circumstances are, and people who clearly know me still come back at me unregistered, I don't know what to do other than clarify it again....
If there was an event in the senate room that I wanted to go to, but couldn't because there was no room for me, and had no actual entitlement to be there because it wasn't being funded by my society or officially run by them, I wouldn't come on a message board and keep demanding that I had a right to be there-
I'm not trying to come across as aggressive, I just don't know what you wanted me to do- expand the room? hang seats from the roof? Demand the university let me pay for the event so my members have a right to come?
Exasperated.
And bloody well post as who you are..... it is so, so cowardly. I don't get what the anonymous thing is about. What do you think will happen if you criticise someone as yourself?
"When I came back to Dublin, I was courtmartialled in my absence and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they could shoot me in my absence."
