Drinking

[Lid]

I agree wholeheartedly with Al.

Furthermore, if there have indeed been problems in LPH with drunkedness and disorderly conduct (considering the two as separate entities), why hasn't the Serjeant-at-Arms taken any action? Never have I see Bessie drawn in anger, something long overdue.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[exnihilo]

Once again, rather than enforce the rules we already have we have invented a new one.

[Midget]

Like Blair.

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg "Little!"
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100090

[LK Today]

Sorry, I've been a bit busy over the last few days and am only now getting round to replying to Lid. As Rob has pointed out, one of the conditions of the debating society's hire of LPH is that no alcohol (indeed no food or drink at all) is consumed within the hall. I am all for people having pre- and post-debate drinks, should they wish, however, rules are rules, and if people who go to debates break those rules they risk the possibility of UDS not being allowed to use LPH in the future. It is the same with the hire of all university rooms, unless other arrangements are made. For special consideration there has to be special circumstances. For societies such as Quaich (which, yes, does involved alcohol) there is an obvious special circumstance, as it is a society for the appreciation of a certain type of alcoholic drink. The same applies for the language/cultural societies, such as French and German. They can drink wine in the Buchanan as they are celebrating something which is unique to that society. There is no such thing as debating alcohol, and the drinking of alcohol is not within the aims of the society, therefore there are no special circumstances. It's much like how we work out society funding actually.

Sorry if that doesn't really make sense. I've been on duty for the last 18 hours and am knackered. If you want a more detailed explanation, then either e mail me on dosda@st-andrews.ac.uk or come see me in my office on the middle floor of the Association.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102636

[Lid]

By the same measure, I do feel for the poor table speakers who will not be allowed to drink water in the course of the debate.

Doesn't the porter bring the jugs of water?

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Al]

"One of the conditions of the debating society's hire of LPH is that no alcohol (indeed no food or drink at all) is consumed within the hall"

If the alcohol ban is due to the university stipulating that no food or drink may be consumed within LPH then what was the point in the Board of Ten passing a motion forbidding it? It's not as if they have the authority to allow it. That however was not the reason given by a member of the Board earlier on this thread. They said that the ban was one taken by the Board to prevent people drinking and consequently behaving in an irresponsible or rude manner.

"I am all for people having pre- and post-debate drinks"

As has already been pointed out, it is a little strange that the Board - and, it appears, the wider Union management - is happy for people to drink before a debate but not in it. Hmmm. Perhaps the long walk to LPH might sober them up.

[Jessica]

I think there's something to point out here. The Board passed the motion after we needed somewhere to hold the pre-drinks for the Inaugural, and (low and behold) the University was extremely hesitant to give us rooms due to our past behavioural record. Secondly, you shouldn't be drinking in LPH anyway. Go the pub, have a great time, and by the time you get to LPH someone can judge whether or not your completely hammered. I suppose, technically, there's nothing to stop you from going to the Criterion and doing eight tequilla shots before wandering back across the street. That's a risk we have to take. We aren't doing this to put a damper on the atmosphere, the rule exists to improve debates. At the point at which someone goes just that one sip too far and becomes rude, it's already too late to repair the damage done to our reputation with outside speakers and the University. If we want more packed debates, more important speakers, nicer rooms to hold pre-drinks, then we need to be respected.

As Lee so apty pointed out, our reputation has already improved, and we want to keep that standing. I say bring on the better speakers, the nicer rooms, and keep the liquor out of LPH. That's the only way you police it, and hot doooog, that's the rule anyway.

So then, what's the problem?

[Lid]

I feel the need to point out, not for the first time on this thread, that drinking was not banned by the BoT.

It was actively discouraged. Drunkedness was banned. Please make the distinction.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[David Bean]

I do like Jessica's 'eight tequila shots' argument: on the same note there's really nothing to stop the hip-flask equipped gent from simply nipping into the cloackroom for a quick sniffder, should he so wish.

The argument about the enforcement of rules is just a little silly. I note the newer UDSers have seized on the argument as though it's their silver bullet, but what they don't realise is that this has always been one of the rules that the university has been happy to waive in the case of the UDS. I mean, is anyone seriously trying to claim that the UDS was anywhere near being kicked out of LPH? Hell, if it survived Peter Blair's year - and no disrespect to him, but it was the year when La Laird was at her alcoholic nadir, 'nuff said - it could pretty much survive anything. Yes, the Psychology Foyer was withdrawn, but that was basically because the department couldn't bother letting us use it, and when they found a couple of discarded plastic cups under a table once, hey pesto, that was their excuse. I'm not convinced that the window breaking had anything to do with a debater, either, and as far as the motion passed by the BoT was concerned, well, we've already heard that it didn't do what the people who passed it thought that it would (i.e. actually banning 'drinking' as opposed to 'drunkenness').

So, my point is, get some perspective - and, yes, enforce the rules if someone starts being disruptive for any reason.

Oh yes, and whilst I'm at it, floor prizes should never be given to current or former members of the BoT except in cases of emergency, or on the FoTH's retiring speech, as a matter of courtesy to the rest of the House.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Jessica]

[quote]Quoting David Bean from 17:43, 21st Nov 2006
what they don't realise is that this has always been one of the rules that the university has been happy to waive in the case of the UDS. I mean, is anyone seriously trying to claim that the UDS was anywhere near being kicked out of LPH?
[hr]

Firstly, the University most certainly does NOT waive the drinking rule for the UDS, anyone who believes that is simply mistaken. In fact, it's the kind of rule that, when we cooperate, gives us a whole lot more bargaining power with the University for the society in general. (Grant, anyone?)

Secondly, on this case of the Psychology building. I believe there were more than a few plastic cups. The cleaners filed a formal complaint against us after that, which explains why we can't use it, or many other buildings anymore. This is the kind of thing we're trying to repair. See, if we behave in a respectable manner, we have a shot at getting that withdrawn...and...POOF! fabulous rooms.

I think it's worth mentioning once again that the current board is only trying to improve the society, its image, and its ability to cater to the students needs to its utmost. We should be respected, but we have to gain that respect, and HOLD it. Want to see amazing speakers? So do I. And I don't think we're compromising anything.

[exnihilo]

We negotiate with the University for the grant now? When did that happen? It's news to me...

Also, re Psychology, the mess was only one of many issues. The largest of which was that it inconvenienced people conducting research in the building due to the noise and the obstruction, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

[OhhMy]

Quoting exnihilo from 19:35, 21st Nov 2006
We negotiate with the University for the grant now? When did that happen? It's news to me...

Also, re Psychology, the mess was only one of many issues. The largest of which was that it inconvenienced people conducting research in the building due to the noise and the obstruction, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

To true, but the mess was a contrabutionary factor.

[Al]

Quoting Jessica from 18:39, 21st Nov 2006
I think it's worth mentioning once again that the current board is only trying to improve the society

Whereas every other Board had nothing but the opposite intent. As do the people writing on here who are/were not members of the Board of Ten.

[Lid]

Quoting David Bean from 17:43, 21st Nov 2006
there's really nothing to stop the hip-flask equipped gent from simply nipping into the cloackroom for a quick sniffder, should he so wish.

But surely, David, someone standing up after each speech, bowing to the chair and making for the cloakroom, then sneaking in after the next speech just to get a drink would cause no disturbance.

Not nearly as much as a reach into the breast pocket.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[exnihilo]

So, just to check, will this apply to speakers as well? If a guest speaker has a hip flask will they be reprimanded for taking a sip during the debate or will a warning be issued to all potential speakers in advance?

Perhaps it would, as everyone had said, be better to simply enforce the existing Rules of Order, to deny admittance to those who are very drunk, to eject those who become so during the course of the debate and to leave everyone else alone.

If I were at a debate and I took a sip from a hip flask, I would be breaking no law, I would be infringing no rule of the University, but if I were publicly reprimanded for doing so, I'd certainly be furious.

[Connie]

The existing rules are

THE UDS HIRE OUT LPH ON THE CONDITION THAT NO ALCOHOL IS CONSUMED IN IT

The current board think it is a good idea to stick by the rules by which we hire buildings out.

[Al]

All right then. I suggest that would be drinkers just leave a little in their hip flask. That way, they're not consuming alcohol.

Oh and you hire the building. The university hires it out.

[Lid]

According to Mr Kane,

THE UDS HIRE LPH ON THE CONDITION THAT NO FOOD AND DRINK IS CONSUMED IN IT.

If either of these are true, why did the UDS have to pass a motion that actively discourages drinking in LPH? If it were already out of their hands?

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Lid]

I've never agreed more with one of your posts.

Quoting exnihilo from 00:40, 22nd Nov 2006
So, just to check, will this apply to speakers as well? If a guest speaker has a hip flask will they be reprimanded for taking a sip during the debate or will a warning be issued to all potential speakers in advance?

Perhaps it would, as everyone had said, be better to simply enforce the existing Rules of Order, to deny admittance to those who are very drunk, to eject those who become so during the course of the debate and to leave everyone else alone.

If I were at a debate and I took a sip from a hip flask, I would be breaking no law, I would be infringing no rule of the University, but if I were publicly reprimanded for doing so, I'd certainly be furious.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[exnihilo]

You are much too kind.