60+ students occupy uni building in protest

[Guest]

[quote="Guest"] rabble-rouser /quote]

I'm slightly shocked that people still say "rabble-rouser" without trying to be ironic of funny.

[Daniel]

Daniel, I believe the esteemed Mr What? was questioning your temporary lack of residence in LCH, not your necessity or purpose for rushing. His implication was that your sense of commitment to the cause is somewhat lacking and unbecoming of a serious sit-in protester, thereby perhaps undermining the concept of a 'sit-in' by allowing it to become instead more of a 'sit-in-when-I'm-not-busy-but-walk-out-when-I've-got-something-on'. Hope that clears things up.

Indeed it does. Is there some rule for sit-in protests I am missing that requires people to be at said location the entirety of the time?

Daniel

[What?]

Many thanks BA. Indeed that was the point I was making, indeed Daniel made my point better than I ever could have.

[Daniel]

Many thanks BA. Indeed that was the point I was making, indeed Daniel made my point better than I ever could have.

Only too glad to help.

Daniel

[munchingfoo]

Indeed it does. Is there some rule for sit-in protests I am missing that requires people to be at said location the entirety of the time?

Daniel

Yes, you are missing the point. A sit in protest comes in two parts.

The first part is the obstruction of a particular area or building.

The second is the individual protester giving up his or her responsibilities in order to show how much a particular cause means to them.

Failure to fulfill the second phase shows that the protester doesn't care about the subject as strongly as they would like you to believe.

[Frederick]

With regards to the protesters demands that the University broadcast an appeal, the Students' Association have claimed they can go to STAR for this.

I just wondered whether the broadcasting committee were under any obligations to do this? Can the STAR crew, for example, refuse to bow to the demands that the group have put in place?

F

[Lukey2]

Dear Munch,

We are all very grateful for the clarification. The fact that you are a braying moron has been made so much clearer by your last post. Because I am sure you are an expert on occupations and have participated in many yourself, you are in an obvious position to lecture people on occupation etiquette (oh wait...I forgot that you are a complete tool and that your definition of occupation was yanked from your ass).

In my opinion, the only guidelines in in an occupation are those that the occupiers themselves decide upon. Perhaps all the occupations you have ever joined have had the same two-part structure? Well...it still doesn't follow that all other occupations must follow that same pattern. Especially considering how cooperative the University has been in allowing freedom of movement, it doesn't seem necessary to have everyone in the space all the time.

Indeed it does. Is there some rule for sit-in protests I am missing that requires people to be at said location the entirety of the time?

Daniel

Yes, you are missing the point. A sit in protest comes in two parts.

The first part is the obstruction of a particular area or building.

The second is the individual protester giving up his or her responsibilities in order to show how much a particular cause means to them.

Failure to fulfill the second phase shows that the protester doesn't care about the subject as strongly as they would like you to believe.

[TRUFFLEpig]

As a person who is not totally convinced of the merits of some of the students demands regarding Gaza, I am wholeheartedly in support of their right to be there. Student protests should if anything be encouraged as it negates the apathy that has been sadly prominent in many university campuses in recent years. As far as i am aware, these are the first such occupations for 10 years and their re-emergence gives me hope that there are people out there that are willing to stand up for what they believe in, even if those beliefs are in difference to my own. The people that I have spoken to outside the hall are clearly committed and dedicated to this cause and I respect the conscientious nature of this protest and to me it appears clear that this is in no way just an attempt by some students to protest, simply for the sake of protesting. I wish those in LCH all the best!

[pambo]

Especially considering how cooperative the University has been in allowing freedom of movement, it doesn't seem necessary to have everyone in the space all the time.

Surely that shows that the university isn't taking you seriously and views you as a bit of a joke. They would be much harsher and restrict movement into LCH if you were actually bothering them in any way.

[Guest]

Saying these people should leave the university is like saying that anti-war protesters should leave the UK if they don't support the decisions of the government.

Hey creepy old man, thanks for your points - i see where you're coming from.

On the above quote though I have to disagree. Being a citizen of a country means being an equal member of a democracy, and your principal and ultimate power is the power of your vote. The university, on the other hand, is a service-provider of which we are consumers. In this scenario, our ultimate power is our money and to which university we choose to give it. Now, I don't believe they should leave; I believe that if they want to bring attention and aid to the Gaza situation (which is admirable) then there are far more effective and efficient ways to do it and I really cannot see the logic of embroiling the university (a neutral party) in it.

Except that the university is a public sector institution, so it's not really just a service provider. The majority of funding is public money, which I think weakens your argument...

[irish200]

Dear Munch,

We are all very grateful for the clarification. The fact that you are a braying moron has been made so much clearer by your last post. Because I am sure you are an expert on occupations and have participated in many yourself, you are in an obvious position to lecture people on occupation etiquette (oh wait...I forgot that you are a complete tool and that your definition of occupation was yanked from your ass).

In my opinion, the only guidelines in in an occupation are those that the occupiers themselves decide upon. Perhaps all the occupations you have ever joined have had the same two-part structure? Well...it still doesn't follow that all other occupations must follow that same pattern. Especially considering how cooperative the University has been in allowing freedom of movement, it doesn't seem necessary to have everyone in the space all the time.

Indeed it does. Is there some rule for sit-in protests I am missing that requires people to be at said location the entirety of the time?

Daniel

Yes, you are missing the point. A sit in protest comes in two parts.

The first part is the obstruction of a particular area or building.

The second is the individual protester giving up his or her responsibilities in order to show how much a particular cause means to them.

Failure to fulfill the second phase shows that the protester doesn't care about the subject as strongly as they would like you to believe.

The best thing would have been to lock them out during the fire drill and not let them back in.

[777]

Dear Munch,

We are all very grateful for the clarification. The fact that you are a braying moron has been made so much clearer by your last post. Because I am sure you are an expert on occupations and have participated in many yourself, you are in an obvious position to lecture people on occupation etiquette (oh wait...I forgot that you are a complete tool and that your definition of occupation was yanked from your ass).

In my opinion, the only guidelines in in an occupation are those that the occupiers themselves decide upon. Perhaps all the occupations you have ever joined have had the same two-part structure? Well...it still doesn't follow that all other occupations must follow that same pattern. Especially considering how cooperative the University has been in allowing freedom of movement, it doesn't seem necessary to have everyone in the space all the time.

Hey, you've COMPLETELY swayed me over to your point of view now.

Spoiler: show

NOT

[Freaker]

In my opinion, the only guidelines in in an occupation are those that the occupiers themselves decide upon.

And some language criteria on what something has to be to properly be referred to as an occupation.

That generally neither requires permanent occupation by the same individuals, nor does it require to give up anything else in virtue of itself, really. I did not follow this thread carefully enough to see if any of the protesters actually considered what they were doing a sit-in protest - which by conventional definition may well have the structure Munchingfoo describes. As an occupation alone, the second part should not be necessary.

Some of the occupiers may want to argue that they are giving something up and limiting theirself, and some of them may be hyprocitical about it, which can be criticised on an individual basis. On a whole, I think they are doing rather well.

Of course if the University is not and will not be bothered by the occupation, then there'd be little point in occupying still, and giving something up, eg lecture strike, hunger strike etc may be called for. Turns out the university seems to be bothered, or at least interested in/concerned by what is happening, otherwise the new principal would not have gone to see for herself today.

This thread is amusing, but not in the warm-fuzzy-feeling sort of way.

[Al]

The first poster wrote "...over 60 students have as of 12:00 today issued demands to University officials and have promptly occupied Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely." A more honest statement would have been "over 60 students...promptly occupied, with the tacit permission of the university, Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely as long as they haven't somewhere more important or interesting to go"

[pambo]

The first poster wrote "...over 60 students have as of 12:00 today issued demands to University officials and have promptly occupied Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely." A more honest statement would have been "over 60 students...promptly occupied, with the tacit permission of the university, Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely as long as they haven't somewhere more important or interesting to go"

[777]

The first poster wrote "...over 60 students have as of 12:00 today issued demands to University officials and have promptly occupied Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely." A more honest statement would have been "over 60 students...promptly occupied, with the tacit permission of the university, Lower College Hall (one of the most comfortable rooms in the university) with the intent to stay indefinitely as long as they haven't somewhere more important or interesting to go"

[Bizarre Atheist]

The first poster wrote "...over 60 students have as of 12:00 today issued demands to University officials and have promptly occupied Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely." A more honest statement would have been "over 60 students...promptly occupied, with the tacit permission of the university, Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely as long as they haven't somewhere more important or interesting to go"

Win.

[munchingfoo]

Dear Munch,

We are all very grateful for the clarification. The fact that you are a braying moron has been made so much clearer by your last post. Because I am sure you are an expert on occupations and have participated in many yourself, you are in an obvious position to lecture people on occupation etiquette (oh wait...I forgot that you are a complete tool and that your definition of occupation was yanked from your ass).

In my opinion, the only guidelines in in an occupation are those that the occupiers themselves decide upon. Perhaps all the occupations you have ever joined have had the same two-part structure? Well...it still doesn't follow that all other occupations must follow that same pattern. Especially considering how cooperative the University has been in allowing freedom of movement, it doesn't seem necessary to have everyone in the space all the time.

Dearest Lukey2,

Thank you for your most kind response of Feb 20th 2009 regarding the definition of sit-in protest. I'm afraid there seems to have been some error on the internet which has replaced all of your uses of "sit-in protest" with "occupation". I'll have a word with the WWW Janitor to see if he can remedy this problem.

Yours Lovingly,

Munchingfoo

[Duggeh]

Indeed it does. Is there some rule for sit-in protests I am missing that requires people to be at said location the entirety of the time?

Daniel

Dear Munch,

We are all very grateful for the clarification. The fact that you are a braying moron has been made so much clearer by your last post. Because I am sure you are an expert on occupations and have participated in many yourself, you are in an obvious position to lecture people on occupation etiquette (oh wait...I forgot that you are a complete tool and that your definition of occupation was yanked from your ass).

In my opinion, the only guidelines in in an occupation are those that the occupiers themselves decide upon. Perhaps all the occupations you have ever joined have had the same two-part structure? Well...it still doesn't follow that all other occupations must follow that same pattern. Especially considering how cooperative the University has been in allowing freedom of movement, it doesn't seem necessary to have everyone in the space all the time.

The first poster wrote "...over 60 students have as of 12:00 today issued demands to University officials and have promptly occupied Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely." A more honest statement would have been "over 60 students...promptly occupied, with the tacit permission of the university, Lower College Hall with the intent to stay indefinitely as long as they haven't somewhere more important or interesting to go"

[Senethro]

now duggeh what have you been told about posting tits