someone: Nominated for Association President

[someone]

Quoting shinyhappyperson from 15:45, 16th Mar 2006

Quoting someone from 19:16, 14th Mar 2006
Sorry, I had my priorities! You project was rent rises; mine was a ball.

How reassuring for the student body.
So in short what did you do for Ethical Investment. Sod All. In practical terms I did more for EI than you did simply by wearing the badge.

Quoting exnihilo from 01:05, 19th Mar 2006
The bile being exhibited by certain people on these threads is deeply unbecoming. And wholly out of proportion.

It'll only get worse, whether I win or lose. Victory will mean they'll take a "let's recall the bastard, he hasn't done anything wrong but we don't like him" stance, and loss will result in a three-year-old-style "nyah, nyah, nyah nyah NYAHHH." I'm actually dreading the EOC reading out the result.

But I agree with Exnihilo on the point that there is a lot of very nasty mudslinging going on in this thread. And knowing who the dirt is being thrown by, I also know that no matter what I do, it's going to be there whenever I look.

Honestly. Let's pretend I didn't run the Ambassador's ball and instead, I woke up with magical super-powers, flew to Sumatra, and tried to save 30 children from a mud slide. Which the Committee kind of tried to do, as we supported a tsunami benefit function by giving free tickets to a raffle at a tsunami benefit function, and if we hadn't lost money, we were going to send 15% of profits to aid organisations. It was a noble effort on our part, I'd like to think.

Nonetheless, if we took some of the gems from this thread and rephrased them, it would make no difference to these people.

"Trying to save 30 children in Indonesia constitutes an extra-ordinary platform. He should be disqualified." (I got that one last year for AB05.)

Or, "Why did you try to save children in Indonesia instead of joining up on the Rent Rises bandwagon? You should be ashamed!"

Or,
"What did you do for Ethical Investment? Sod all. You were too busy trying to save children in Indonesia. Just by wearing the badge, I did more for EI than you."



Or,
"Regardless of the outcome, would you at least be willing to HONESTLY address the accusations against you as accountability does not appear to be your forte at the moment. Until you do, please stop saying how you want to save children in Indonesia because I think that it still has potential for positive use in the future and I would not want it to be associated with this election in general."

I should really use that mechanism more often when people criticise my priorities.


I had some friends over after hours last night and a lot of this stuff (particularly when we went to the facebook pages of the people involved) is really very funny. Because when you get down to it, for each critic on this website who nitpicks about your every word, there are ten people who would say "hey, he's an OK guy." I'm just hoping they went to the ballot boxes.

Preston.

[someone]

Double post.

[Spike]

Quoting someone from 10:03, 19th Mar 2006
...Because when you get down to it, for each critic on this website who nitpicks about your every word, there are ten people who go to the polls and say "hey, he's an OK guy."

Preston.

But is it not also true that the people nitpicking are much more likely to vote that those who have no strong feelings either way. In fact is it not also true to think that those who have no strong feelings for or against you are going to split their votes anyway? I mean its highly unlikely that everyone who doesnt dislike you (hopefully a lot of people) will ALL vote for you, or even vote at all?

[someone]

Quoting Spike from 10:15, 19th Mar 2006

But is it not also true that the people nitpicking are much more likely to vote that those who have no strong feelings either way. In fact is it not also true to think that those who have no strong feelings for or against you are going to split their votes anyway? I mean its highly unlikely that everyone who doesnt dislike you (hopefully a lot of people) will ALL vote for you, or even vote at all?

We'll find that out on Wednesday, I suppose.

[atreus]

Quoting someone from 10:22, 19th Mar 2006
We'll find that out on Wednesday, I suppose.

Where is the Presidential result going to be announced anyway? And has a time been designated, or is that TBA at the discretion of the EOC?

[Al]

Quoting exnihilo from 01:05, 19th Mar 2006
The bile being exhibited by certain people on these threads is deeply unbecoming. And wholly out of proportion.

Why? He is alleged to have used threatening behaviour. Given that such behaviour is against the law, that alone (ignoring all the other complaints) is grounds for disqualification. I don't see how anyone who threatens students/members of staff is a fit person to sit on University Court.

[exnihilo]

Because he's alleged to. Allegation is not guilt. Or is it now?

[atreus]

I think in politics, what is it that's said in Syriana? Allegation is guilt? Thankfully not in student politics here in st andrews...

[exnihilo]

On this forum it seems to be. I find it interesting that people who don't actually know what complaints were made about whom or by whom think they can pronounce on who should and should not sit on the University Court. Bizarre.

[Sid]

Or, "Why did you try to save children in Indonesia instead of joining up on the Rent Rises bandwagon? You should be ashamed!"

That is utterly shocking!!! Some people are just unbelievable.

[Al]

Quoting exnihilo from 13:18, 19th Mar 2006
On this forum it seems to be. I find it interesting that people who don't actually know what complaints were made about whom or by whom think they can pronounce on who should and should not sit on the University Court. Bizarre.

Actually, I do know what the complaint made was and who made it.

[exnihilo]

Way to go. Still doesn't give you the right to sit in judgement. It's still just a complaint until ruled on by the proper process.

[someone]

Quoting exnihilo from 14:40, 19th Mar 2006
Way to go. Still doesn't give you the right to sit in judgement. It's still just a complaint until ruled on by the proper process.

The EOC ruled on it on Thursday. Action was taken.

[Al]

I never said it did give me the "right to sit in judgement". I was merely expressing an opinion.

[suigeneris]

Yes, the opinion that the mere act of accusing was sufficient to disqualify. Which, patently, it is not.

[exnihilo]

Yes, the opinion that the mere act of accusing was sufficient to disqualify. Which, patently, it is not.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not defending anyone's actions, merely the principles that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that once a ruling has been made on an issue it is then closed.

[Al]

No, but the use of threatening behaviour is sufficient to disqualify.

The law states that

"A person is guilty if he either

a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
b) distributes to another person any writing or sign which is threatening, abusive or insulting

and either

i) he intends to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person or to provoke such immediate violence, or
ii) it is likely that the person will believe that such violence will be used against him, or it is likely that such violence will be provoked."

Given that Mr Byrne has alluded several times to the size of the people he was confronting, I think it is fair to say that he had considered the possibility of using violence.

And let us not forget that Mr Byrne is the person who wrote "you have a right not to be harrassed in the Union Building". Surely people have an equal right not to feel threatened wherever they are.

[exnihilo]

Still just an allegation, accusation is not guilt.

[Al]

Quoting exnihilo from 15:36, 19th Mar 2006
Still just an allegation, accusation is not guilt.

True enough. But Mr Byrne is showing no signs of denying it.

I suggest we leave this discussion until a decision is made by the relevant authority. Then we can argue about it some more.

[someone]

Quoting Al from 15:42, 19th Mar 2006
True enough. But Mr Byrne is showing no signs of denying it.

I suggest we leave this discussion until a decision is made by the relevant authority. Then we can argue about it some more.

You're pathetic.

I have never threatened a member of staff at the University, and you can use the word "allegation" all you want, but the relevant authority dealt with the McIntosh incident and acted on it. The most severe part of the complaint by the wardens to the EOC was that I was "impolite," and even that is assessment which I happen to disagree with. (I could see "crass" but not "impolite.")

"Aggressive" and "threatening" never came into the equation. The body calling themselves the "Wardenial Council" filed a complaint on the behalf of the McIntosh sub-wardens in question. If any aggression or threatening behaviour had taken place, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have been unhappy with it and communicated it strongly. The reason it is being brought up now is because some of my political opponents, not necessarily candidates, are desperate to see me out of the running and, that failing, will sling mud. They're walking on very thin, very libellous ice in this respect.

The EOC dealt with this four days ago. The decision was made by relevant authorities and it's a settled issue.


someone
Nominated for Association President.