Inter-Residence Debating Competition 2007

[David Bean]

To reply to exnihillo's point, I'm afraid I haven't a clue when the reference was changed to 'the Royal Family', but I do know that it was before 2001 because the set of Standing Orders I amended in 2003 (which have stood without amendment to date) were based on what I thought were a fairly old set, which I think I recall Eliot saying he had something to do with writing. So it must have been during the pre-summer part of Paterson's term, or even before that. However, as a matter of course I think the rule should remain as-is (my view on this hasn't changed since 2003, and nobody argued against it back, then, at least not successfully).

Obviously this particular rule must be suspended in debates on the subject of the monarchy, however in my view the best course of action would be for the Speaker, at the very start of the debate, to state that "For the duration of this debate, Standing Order 3.VI shall be suspended" (which the Standing Orders themselves grant the Speaker license to do. This pre-empts the kind of POO jiggery pokery you apparently saw during that debate, and also preserves the rest of the standing orders which are required to prevent anarchy (since, technically speaking, in suspending the Standing Orders the Speaker revoked their own authority to moderate the debate).

As a warning to anyone contemplating standing for COnvenor, this is exactly the kind of situation you can expect to find yourself in, and you have to be prepared to make a call on the spur of the moment, and to make it the right one.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Alex Jennings]

Sorry to stop the discussion about the change in the standing orders - I remember the rule being only about the Queen as of my start at university...these things do tend to morph and change with time.

But here it is...the tab of the Inter-Res.

INTER RESIDENCE TAB

RND 1 RND 2 RND 3 SUM
THE BIATCHES… 3 3 3 9
CAMP CONCENTRATION 2 3 3 8
CRICHTON MONTROSE A 3 1 2 6
DEANS COURT A 2 2 2 6

MCINTOSH A 1 2 1 4
SALLIES B 1 3 0 4
SALLIES A 3 0 1 4
MELVILLE B 0 0 3 3
DRA A 0 1 2 3
JOHN BURNET A 0 2 1 3
MELVILLE A 2 1 0 3
ALBANY PARK A 1 0 0 1

SPEAKER TAB

Jason Vit (CAMP) 77 80 79 236
Connie Grieve(BIATCHES) 76 78 80 234
Tony Murphy (CM A) 79 76 78 233
Rachael Whitbread (BIATCHES) 75 76 76 227
Frank DiTraglia (DEANS) 77 77 72 226
Sarah Gates(SALLIES B) 79 71 75 225
Tom Cahn (CAMP) 72 75 77 224
Rebecca Emmett (CM A) 78 72 74 224
Laura Mattina (MCINTOSH)72 79 73 224
Daniel Mintz (DEANS) 73 73 70 216
Beth Conner (SALLIES A) 70 74 71 215
Calum Benson (MCINTOSH)70 73 70 213
Zoe Sutherland (DRA A) 69 68 74 211
Will Masters (MELVILLE B) 64 69 77 210
Stephanie Kelly (MELVILLE B) 71 65 74 210
Jhonti Bird (SALLIES A) 69 72 69 210
David Tong (DRA A) 65 66 75 206
Luke Baker (SALLIES B) 71 69 66 206
Jess Brown (ALBANY PARK A) 68 70 66 204
Kelsey Jackson-White (JBH A) 67 68 69 204
Miles Wood (MELVILLE A) 77 73 50 200
Andrew Smith (JBH A) 62 69 69 200
Jo Dingley (ALBANY PARK A) 68 67 62 197
James Boulter (MELVILLE A)72 70 50 192


[hr]

"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."

[Alex Jennings]

Just one more thing to add about the confusion over the standing orders...

Rachael was speaking in the debate, as was the deputy convener, as were the only other people that have a lot of experience with chairing. We were incredibly lucky to find Rob at the last second (literally 15 minutes before the debate) who chaired the debate. Usually when people step in like this there isn't a crisis regarding the standing orders, so I think we can cut all this a bit of slack. I'm sure we will all have learned from this and it won't happen again.

[hr]

"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."

[David Bean]

Quoting Alex Jennings from 22:55, 27th Feb 2007
Sorry to stop the discussion about the change in the standing orders - I remember the rule being only about the Queen as of my start at university...these things do tend to morph and change with time.

I'm afraid that is not correct. It's true that most people assumed that the rule referred only to the Queen, but the actual text of the Standing Orders did at that time make explicit reference to 'members of the Royal Family', had done for an indeterminate period of time before then and has done since.

By the way, again at risk of sounding overly critical, if the Convenor and deputy were speaking in the debate, shouldn't whoever came up with the motion have found it pretty obvious that a crisis over the Standing Orders was about to occur, and realised that sending in Rob without a full brief on what to do about it was a disaster waiting to happen? I wouldn't blame him so much as the cirsumstances that put him in that position.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[TC]

David what happened was not a disaster or a crisis. Frankly everyone had a lot of other things to do than worry about the standing orders, such as running the competition.

We very simply suspended the orders when it became a problem. Thus there was no crisis, merely a temperory problem to which a simple and sensible solution was found and Rob did his job brilliantly. It really was not an issue. You will be glad to hear that the standing orders were re-instated just in time for the Courier final on Friday, which meant that we where all very well behaved and did not scare any of the darling schoolies.

[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[ChrisH]

Can I just say that I found the whole thing a great laugh, Toby O'Murphy got threatened by Jess with Bessie, Royce got to leap up on a point of order and defend the royal family and it all added to what was really a fun atmosphere and a good debate.

No-one at the time seemed to think it a crisis or a particularly great conundrum as to what to do. Suspending the standing orders was suggested (maybe my Royce my memory fails) as a means of preventing a point of order and then a formulaic apology every time anyone said anything potentially insulting.

[exnihilo]

Quoting David Bean from 14:37, 4th Mar 2007
I'm afraid that is not correct. It's true that most people assumed that the rule referred only to the Queen, but the actual text of the Standing Orders did at that time make explicit reference to 'members of the Royal Family', had done for an indeterminate period of time before then and has done since.

Such certainty, such authority. And, yet, I have in front of me, right now, the text of a Freshers' Guide from 1995 which suggests otherwise.

[TC]

I aggree with Chris on this one. It was all very entertaining. My one regret was that I was speaking and not Serjeanting as it was the one time this year that Bessie was drawn in anger. Oh how I hope that I will get an opertunity to use her to defend order in the chamber myself before the end of my term!

[hr]

Per Ardua ad Astra

[Imago]

Quoting TC from 16:40, 4th Mar 2007
David what happened was not a disaster or a crisis. Frankly everyone had a lot of other things to do than worry about the standing orders, such as running the competition.

You will be glad to hear that the standing orders were re-instated just in time for the Courier final on Friday, which meant that we were all very well behaved.

Chris even managed to get the desirability of cosmetic enhancements to the Prince of Wales’s ears into the floor debate without ever disrespectfully referring to HRH by name ...which wouldn't have been a crisis either.

On the other hand, were someone at the Courier final to have been seated at the front of the hall wearing a Society gown, in full view of all the schoolies and their parents, swigging openly from a hip flask and then remarking where the gavel might be shoved when he was knocked out of time - now that, David, might be classed as a disaster. But of course that didn’t happen... this year.

[Al]

Quoting Imago from 22:42, 4th Mar 2007
Chris even managed to get the desirability of cosmetic enhancements to the Prince of Wales’s ears into the floor debate without ever disrespectfully referring to HRH by name ...which wouldn't have been a crisis either.

The Duke of Rothesay's ears, surely?

On the other hand, were someone at the Courier final to have been seated at the front of the hall wearing a Society gown, in full view of all the schoolies and their parents, swigging openly from a hip flask and then remarking where the gavel might be shoved when he was knocked out of time - now that, David, might be classed as a disaster. But of course that didn’t happen... this year.

Might be classed as a disaster? Then people are obviously more sensitive than they were.

[ChrisH]

The Duke of Rothesay's ears, surely?

Hence why I didn't use his title either, as I knew he is not referred to as Prince of Wales up here but could not for the life of me remember his title, so thanks for reminding me for the next time I need to bring that one up.

[David Bean]

Quoting exnihilo from 19:04, 4th Mar 2007
Such certainty, such authority. And, yet, I have in front of me, right now, the text of a Freshers' Guide from 1995 which suggests otherwise.

Ay, except I didn't claim any knowledge of what they might have said before September 2001; it's entirely probable that they were changed some time in the interim period. Alex didn't come until about 2002 (I think?).

Lmago: it might be classified as a disaster... if you're a moron. First of all I'm not quie sure what you mean by 'a Society gown', since the only one I'm aware of is the Convenor's (ever since the other one disappeared under entirely non-mysterious circumstances). As far as the rest of it is concerned, I'll just repeat what I've always said: it was nothing that hadn't happened on numerous occasions before, including when I spoke in that same final whilst at school, and the only comment about the gavel was that it would be put in a place it wasn't meant to go - which, as the owner of a gavel myself and a former weilder of that one, I can think of many. The only difference on this occasion was a bunch of treacherous, ungrateful paranoiacs and an evil son of a bitch of an Association President who set me up by waylaying my letter of explanation and then lying about it. Maybe when you've helped out with that competition in some capacity or other for ten straight years, you'll be in a better position to comment.

Tom: well, we could always get Tom Hodges in to challenge you to a duel...

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[exnihilo]

Quoting David Bean from 20:35, 5th Mar 2007
Maybe when you've helped out with that competition in some capacity or other for ten straight years, you'll be in a better position to comment.

Crikey, you don't leave much wiggle room there. I think that pretty much limits it to ... well, me.

[Alex Jennings]

Let me be clear about this - I may not have been involved with the competition for ten years, but I have been solidly involved for four years and have it on relatively good authority from those with more experience than I that what happened last year was not something that was commonplace.

I realise David that you were trying to make a joke at the time that you threatened to put the gavel 'where it was not meant to go' - however it was inappropriate considering the context - the fact that you spoke well beyond the three minutes allotted to you (you were creeping up close to six minutes), you had been drinking out of a hip flask in front of the schoolchildren during the debate - something which many teachers and parents (and sponsors) complained about and finally, yes, I WAS offended by your comment. It was uncalled for and though you can think of many places a gavel could possibly go, it was clear that the crowd did not perceive it that way. You were wearing a gown of the association and were there as an elder member of the debating society in your capacity as Father of the House and the whole incident was rather embarrassing for all of us and still reflects badly upon us now.

That is all I want to say about this.

[hr]

"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."

[RJ Covino]

Quoting exnihilo from 20:39, 5th Mar 2007
Crikey, you don't leave much wiggle room there. I think that pretty much limits it to ... well, me.

I think Pugh said the other night that it was his 14th Courier Final or so.

[Imago]

Quoting David Bean from 20:35, 5th Mar 2007
Maybe when you've helped out with that competition in some capacity or other for ten straight years, you'll be in a better position to comment.

Ummm... very generous of you to class your participation in said competition a decade ago as 'helping out with' it...

[exnihilo]

Quoting RJ Covino from 23:44, 5th Mar 2007

Quoting exnihilo from 20:39, 5th Mar 2007
Crikey, you don't leave much wiggle room there. I think that pretty much limits it to ... well, me.

I think Pugh said the other night that it was his 14th Courier Final or so.

It would be, we both started in 1993, so to 2007 is 13 finals as we missed the first one, by dint of starting in October. Of course, as I competed as a slip of a lad too, I think I can still claim the longest involvement.

[ChrisH]

The only difference on this occasion was a bunch of treacherous, ungrateful paranoiacs

Given a paranoiac is "a person showing unnecessary fear or an unreasonable and extreme suspicion of others" I would suggest that one cannot infer that the complainants are such from their actions.

And as for saying that just because you saw it happen when you were speaking in a schools final that doesn't make it OK. Especially as I seem to recall that the Courier wasn't exactly thrilled either, so it wasn't just students.

On a lighter note I fail to see why anyone would consume alcohol they had presumably purchased on Courier night, as I readily showed this year and Aaron last, even without the sherry it is perfectly possible to get bladdered for free!

[Ewan MacDonald]

Quoting David Bean from 20:35, 5th Mar 2007

Quoting exnihilo from 19:04, 4th Mar 2007

Lmago: it might be classified as a disaster... if you're a moron. First of all I'm not quie sure what you mean by 'a Society gown', since the only one I'm aware of is the Convenor's (ever since the other one disappeared under entirely non-mysterious circumstances). As far as the rest of it is concerned, I'll just repeat what I've always said: it was nothing that hadn't happened on numerous occasions before, including when I spoke in that same final whilst at school, and the only comment about the gavel was that it would be put in a place it wasn't meant to go - which, as the owner of a gavel myself and a former weilder of that one, I can think of many. The only difference on this occasion was a bunch of treacherous, ungrateful paranoiacs and an evil son of a bitch of an Association President who set me up by waylaying my letter of explanation and then lying about it. Maybe when you've helped out with that competition in some capacity or other for ten straight years, you'll be in a better position to comment.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

No David, it was a complete disaster, and I would know because I had to clear up the wreckage. But since you appear to be bringing my credibility into I have to respond.
· The gown you were wearing was the one appropriated for DOSDA. Since that role involves sabbatical responsibility for the society (at least as I understand it from your own postings on the matter and DOSDAs attendance at Board of Ten) that counts as a society gown. Whether a gown represents the society, or the Union is a moot point. I might understand the distinction but that is something that was certainly not apparent to the people who complained to me afterwards about your appalling behaviour, who all assumed that by wearing a decorated gown you were representing the society; an obvious deduction for people not au fait with gown etiquette.
· This issue of it being something that had happened before needs clarifying. I have never heard of any member of the society in my memory drinking from a hip flask during the course of a Courier debate. So that doesn’t stand. Again though, even if you can remember it happening before, that doesn’t make it appropriate. Everyone received an email before the final detailing appropriate behaviour at the event due to the presence of schoolchildren and sponsors. The fact that you decided to ignore that, and then behave in the manner that you did was the cause of concern.
· Telling someone to commit an anatomically complex act with a gavel is not appropriate behaviour. Even if you were sober and not drinking in front of teachers and schoolkids, it would have been out of order, and liable for comment. When you do that after obviously swigging from a hip-flask you exacerbate the offence. I contest your version of the wording, since it was reported to me by a number of sources (who were sober and liable to remember it better than yourself) that it involved the phrase ‘where the sun don’t shine’, which I am sure that you will accept is not appropriate in front of young people. The fact you seem to believe both these comments and your drunkenness are acceptable exposes how bereft your position is.
· This idea that a group of paranoid enemies went after your innocent self is a fantasy of martyrdom which does not exist. I wrote to the society expressing my grateful thanks for their support, but mentioning that The Courier were very unhappy at your behaviour. This was not much fun for me as the Society as a whole had behaved in an exemplary manner, which was brought into disrepute by your own squalid activity. I know that you were asked to write a letter, I know that it was a considerable amount of time until I received this letter, I know when I received this letter that it was the most insincere apology I have ever seen. If you had been genuinely sorry you would have apologised to me personally, which could have been done by email, phone, carrier pigeon. Or in person. If you had done this, and sincerely apologised for the specific offences I was constrained to complain about, then none of this would have been an issue. What is abundantly clear from your post is that in no way have you shown any remorse for behaviour the rest of the society was appalled at.
· As for your final comments that veracity or importance of comment is entirely predicated on length of service, that is the most pathetic attempt I have seen to avoid the issue. If you actually had any basis whatsoever for your response you would have the courage to defend yourself on merit and argumentation. The fact you chose to use, “I am old, and spoke in this as a kid therefore I am right’ fundamentally exposes how weak your actual case is. It is that sort of attitude that puts people off the debating society.


[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

[exnihilo]

For a moment I thought you're ire was at me. How distressing - but I see it's just wonky quoting, you've no idea the relief.