A frustrating day

[Cain]

Quoting Jono from 21:16, 25th Apr 2006
Yes thank you! I'm well aware that my grasp of the English language is severely lacking. I'll take you pedantic-ness as a sign I’ve made a valid, yet uncomfortable point!

the word that you're looking for is 'pedantry'

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[Steveo]

The point I tried to get across at Board last week was that drinking isn't the whole problem. I, for example, can take more alcohol than most, and as such a few large g&t's beforehand won't affect me one jot, but the same can't be said for many.

Organised pre-drinks, not the current system of going to Lafferties/the Criterion of whatever they call it, takes people into a place where they get a sherry or port, and are drinking in a controled environment.

As for drinking in LPH, I see no problem with the odd hip flask indulgence, because as Al mentioned, alcohol alone doesn't make people obnoxious and whatnot.

Banning alcohol in LPH just seems so kneejerkm, when a policy of effective removal of troublemakers would do just fine.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[exnihilo]

Indeed, I've rarely attended a debate without having a few driunks beforehand. When I speak I like to have a drink on the table, and I often carry a hip flask. I realise that makes me sound like an alcoholic, but the point is despite all of that I've never been cautioned for my behaviour by a Convenor (most of them wouldn't have dared!).

Alcohol alone is not the issue, it's how certain people behave when they've had too much. I would not want to see knee-jerk bannings because someone was a little unruly. The Convenor can call the House to Order generally, she can then single out anyone who does not comply and then - and only then - if that person persists she can have him or her removed. I would not even then ban them from attending, I would contact them and explain why they were removed and ask them not to repeat it. If at a subsequent debate there is a repeat, then you can think about banning.

(Oh, jono, you made an interesting point, but hardly an uncomfortable or telling one. As for my pedantry, it's indicative of nothing more than my desire for accuracy, something everyone should emulate.)

[Ewan MacDonald]

I genuinely am not trying to have a go, but does anyone know if anyone is allowed to drink alcohol in Parliament Hall.
Because if so, then moderation is fine, it is the idiots who are the problem, not those who can handle it.
If we are not allowed ianything other than water, then the discussion is irrelevent as we are risking being banned from our own chamber. And since there seems to be a general University policy of excluding societies (and sadly specifically us) from their rooms, surely this cannot be countenanced!


[hr]

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Edmund Burke

[Dickie]

Quoting Ewan MacDonald from 09:18, 26th Apr 2006
I genuinely am not trying to have a go, but does anyone know if anyone is allowed to drink alcohol in Parliament Hall.

Alcohol is not banned from LPH.

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[Sally]

Alcohol is not banned from LPH.

The porters don't seem to agree. They were saying on Sunday that alcohol was banned.

[Mr Comedy]

As far I am aware, alcohol is not banned from LPH. The only reason why it may be banned is that a debate is technically a meeting of a union sub-committee, at which alcohol is banned under the constitution. But anyone who enforces that needs a humour transplant.

I don't agree that drinking and bad behaviour necessarially go hand in hand either.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Jono]

Quoting cain from 21:52, 25th Apr 2006

Quoting Jono from 21:16, 25th Apr 2006
Yes thank you! I'm well aware that my grasp of the English language is severely lacking. I'll take you pedantic-ness as a sign I’ve made a valid, yet uncomfortable point!

the word that you're looking for is 'pedantry'

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

I was being ironic.

[hr]

Don't mention the Nazi's!

[exnihilo]

Call me skeptical.

[Steveo]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 14:02, 26th Apr 2006
As far I am aware, alcohol is not banned from LPH. The only reason why it may be banned is that a debate is technically a meeting of a union sub-committee, at which alcohol is banned under the constitution. But anyone who enforces that needs a humour transplant.

I don't agree that drinking and bad behaviour necessarially go hand in hand either.

I think you mean the Standing Orders.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Al]

But such a rule would only prevent the Board of Ten drinking during Debates. Not the speakers or members of the house.

[Steveo]

Standing Orders
9.a Members shall refrain from smoking and consuming alcohol during meetings.

So, the BoT, being the only members of the sub-comittee......

Well spotted that man.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Epeeduelist84]

Two issues here:

1) The Convenor has taken the active stance that drinking in the chamber is severely discouraged, as a practical step toward dealing with this issue. Of course, drinking during any Schools-related activity in LPH is absolutely prohibited.

2) As an individual NOT on the current BoT, I'd like to point out that, actually, the entire debating society is a sub-committee of the Students' Association, not just the Board. Therefore, according to the aforementioned Standing Orders, all members of the House should refrain from smoking and drinking alcohol during a 'meeting' of the sub-committee in LPH on Wednesday nights. Technically.

This said, I think we can all agree that the issue is preventing disruptive behaviour. If simply saying drinking is 'discouraged' in LPH works (which it appeared to do this last Sunday), then that will work. If it doesn't work, I think our current Convenor is willing to take additional steps to correct the problem. However, I don't think there is any need to fear a 'knee jerk' reaction to this situation. Measures dealing with problem would only escalate (and slowly at that) if the problem continued. Really, it's an issue of the Society itself making the conscious decision at the individual level to correct the problem. I see no reason that cannot be done.

The current Board seems dedicated to repairing our reputation within the University. As that process gradually succeeds, hopefully facilities will once again become available. The Board definitely is making a concerted effort to address that issue, as the last several Board meetings have amply demonstrated. I think we can look forward to a year of improved relations with the rest of the University, but such things take time. We will have to wait and see.

[Dickie]

Quoting Epeeduelist84 from 22:55, 26th Apr 2006
I'd like to point out that, actually, the entire debating society is a sub-committee of the Students' Association, not just the Board.

Having just checked Chapters 3 and 12 of the Laws, it reads to me (not an expert) that just the "Debates Board" is a sub-committee of SSC not the whole membership of The House.



[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[Al]

So that would make the Board of Ten a sub-committee of a sub-committee? Well, no. And that is because what you say is not true.

Edit: This was in response to Epeeduelist84.

[Eliot Wilson]

I'm with Al and Dickie here - it seems absurd to suggest that the entire Union Debating Society (and therefore the entire student body) is a sub-committee of the SSC. I'm also vaguely amused by the "of course, drinking during any Schools-related activity in LPH is absolutely prohibited". How times change.

It comes back to generalising specific problems. There have (it would appear) been some problems with slightly uncouth behaviour by some members of the Society. So what's the reaction? Not "Let's deal with the individuals", but "Fuck! Don't know what to do. Best have a go at anyone who has ever had a drink before a debate". It just seems lazy to me. Mind you, if you wanted to knock me down, you wouldn't have to go to the Enormously Heavy Feather Shop.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Steveo]

I think the ban on drinking at schools competitions is fair, it might prevent people threatening other people with sodomy by means of gavel (although which end first, we just don't know).

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[exnihilo]

Again, it's not the drinking it's the awareness of what is appropriate. I can remember a great deal of innuendo and risque humour at Schools debateas, often from the children, which caused no offence to anyone.

[RJ Covino]

Indeed, one of the speakers at last night's Ross Cup suggested that only people who have children whilst in their teens themselves can be considered fit parents. It didn't even come from the Dundee side of the table, as the kids repeatedly pointed out.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Ewan MacDonald]

For those who are interested, on the subject of heckling in todays Granuiad

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politics ... 82,00.html

If the link fails it is the politics section, Michael White, A brief history of heckling


[hr]

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Edmund Burke