60+ students occupy uni building in protest

[Lukey2]

I don't think either of us is really in a position to speak for everyone, but you definitely don't have a petition with 800 signatures on it.

Having around 600 of them being sheep who just click accept to Facebook invites does not constitute supporters.

The petition was not done over facebook. Even if it was, I was mostly objecting to Pambo's insistence that "everyone" was against the occupation. Just to set things straight, I think that 800 people supporting our demands is slightly more impressive than 35 surly sinners who would be being nasty about something else if the occupation hadn't been brought to their attention.

[Harry]

So we agreed to end (rather than "abandon" the occupation today after reaching agreement with the University on their response to our demands. Or at least the bit between "In good faith" and "humanitarian aid." The "We believe that all the issues should have been raised, and could have been resolved, through the existing processes of dialogue" and "The University’s position on these issues has been completely consistent throughout and we have not changed our position" bits are more cheap parting shots than "in good faith" though, sadly.

The second is actually basically an outright lie. I don't expect any of you to believe me, but put it this way: we've had more than daily meetings with the University, at which they've tried to come up with a response which would make us leave. At no point have we ever been threatened with eviction or disciplinary action. So unless they had negotiated with us and made concessions, do you really think we'd have suddenly agreed to leave? Surely that must stretch your cycnicism a bit?

On the "existing processes" thing, will, I know you lot believe that stuff. We don't, though. My prose got pretty purple on our blog:

"As far as we’re concerned, the University has consistently changed its position in negotations with us, being forced to make more and more concessions until we agreed to leave. We believe that our occupation demonstrates the power of direct action, of people gathering together and speaking truth to power, of seizing democratic free expression and autonomous spaces into their own hands, and that we could never have achieved as much through the meagre “existing processes”. Our occupation has been a fresh break from the tedium and apathy of student politics — a new democratic expression!"

I know that'll make you snigger. But here's the two things I'd like you to think about. Firstly, both S.A. President Andrew Keenan and Rector Kevin Dunnion have told us that they have never seen the University move so fast on an issue. So clearly our tactics work. As for whether they're justified, well, consider all of the ranting that takes place on this board every S.A. elections period about their irrelevance, the self-serving egocentricity of hacks, student apathy, &c. &c. My general feeling is that many of the Sinnerites hating on the occupation hate just as much (well, maybe not just as much) on the "existing processes". So if they're not democratic (which I believe they aren't), it needn't matter that we're not either (though I believe we are).

Finally, to whether or not we've achieved anything: well, we think we have. We've got a scholarship programme set up which is going to ensure scholarships for Palestinians. We've not only helped established reviews of ethical procurement (which will then ensure the cessation of the Eden Springs contract) and ethical research (ditto arms company funding), but ensured that we will be able to be part of the committees conducting those reviews. And we've got the University to agree to the donation of non-monetary aid. On top of all that, the whole occupation process has seen us make links with not just other student groups across Scotland (leading to the formation of Scotland-wide student Palestinian solidarity), but with the Islamic University of Gaza, who sent their solidarity with the occupation and a message of support that really encouraged us to believe that our actions were going to have a direct impact in the region. So there you go.

I feel good. I'm typing this from a rally at which, at my headcount, 58 students are attending, plus a Rector (seeing as you demand accuracy. I've been doing the headcounts that keep getting reported, by the way. There were 60-80 at the original occupation, at least 30 every night, and always roughly 60 at our big meetings. I didn't count the rally). And this rally feels good. We're all smiling.

[Cain]

I think that 800 people supporting our demands

Did we establish whether or not support for the demands was the same as support for the occupatation (sic)?

[What?]

Excellent. Now we can stop being a laughing stock of other Universities whose students care about real issues that affect them and their lives.

Just out of curiosity, why would we be a laughing stock of other Universities if these occupations have been a nation-wide phenomenon? With the addition of Plymouth, 22 Universities have engaged in occupations since the conflict in Gaza began. This University doing research for un-ethical companies and/or buying things from them does affect our lives insofar as it affects the moral character of this institution (the values of which have already been embedded in our pre-existent ethical investment policy).

Thank you for your curiosity.

Companies like BAE Systems are fine British companies whose employment this country badly needs in times of a recession. Surely the St Andrews Left Society supports the employment of as many people as possible, not putting pressure on a firm that is giving much needed support to our struggling jobs market. Similarly Eden Springs has closed a bottling plant in East Lothian already, more jobs gone, jobs that put Scottish water into Scottish bottles for sale in Scotland without a wiff of the Holy Land there.

The University is already addressing its ethical and moral investment and procurement if I am to believe those from Estates who lecture on the Sustainable Development degree programme. The white noise the University have spun you allows them to continue the gradual contract replacement and cost-effective solutions they were always looking for.

Phenomenon is the wrong word. Your occupation was not a phenomenon here - if it was I would expect more than 1% of the student body to be actively involved. I do not take Facebook group membership as an example of support. When I look at my groups I see some that I should really weed out because I joined them when clearing out requests, not because it's something I care about. Unless there are 5, 10 or even 20% of students at other institutions participating in their occupations there is nothing phenomenal about it and I'd imagine there is the same apathy at these places as there is here.

Quote of the day goes to my flatmate 10 minutes ago when I said the occupation was at last over. She replied 'What occupation?' She is not alone.

[Al]

The petition was not done over facebook. Even if it was, I was mostly objecting to Pambo's insistence that "everyone" was against the occupation. Just to set things straight, I think that 800 people supporting our demands is slightly more impressive than 35 surly sinners who would be being nasty about something else if the occupation hadn't been brought to their attention.

Were you one of the people doing the headcounts for the occupators? I only ask because it was "twenty or so people engaged in business-as-usual-Sinner-pissing-contests" and now it's "35 surly Sinners". It's no wonder that no one could get a consistent number of the people involved. "One, five, ten, fifty, a hundred!"

[Lukey2]

By the way, we decided to leave because we were reasonably happy with the University’s concessions to us, and we decided that extending the occupation was not the best tactic to use in campaigning further.

What concessions? They have said they will think about some of the things that may have been worth thinking about possibly. They have downright refused each and everyone of your "demands". Don't let language like "thorough examination of the sustainability and ethical issues associated with the procurement of drinking water" or "potential surplus equipment and supplies for humanitarian aid" confuse you. They have produced nothing but white noise, and you are lapping it up by the gallon, desperate to justify your actions.

You are leaving because you are no longer enjoying the initial limelight and after it has come to everyone's attention that you are in the vast minority of the student body. Plus I imagine the fun element has been exhausted and it's time to start going back to lectures (except some of you didn't even give that up for the cause). This will be remembered as a joke.

There are a number of reasons that the University is phrasing the water demand in terms of Sustainability. First, they want to save face and make it seem as though the occupation had no influence on them (a lie--their final statement was actually the result of three sets of negotiations, with them giving ground after every meeting). Second, as Andrew Kennan pointed out, if they justify the policy change is terms of sustainability, they can dip into government money to build water fountains. Because they have not said they will cancel their Eden Springs contract is not necessarily a defeat. Their statement does express a commitment to moving past bottled water, which will get rid of Eden Springs regardless. They are giving us what we want but without the moral/ideological language that we might have appreciated their using. In regards to us "lapping up" their "white noise," I think that your word use is very clever, but that you are ultimately mistaken. The Dean of the Bute has already expressed a desire to meet with us. Moreover, we have a signed letter from the Proctor saying that if we organize a supply drive, he will send an e-mail to faculty and staff from across the University encouraging them to donate relief supplies.

Yes, I am aware that there is a lot in there that might sound like they are using bureaucracy to deflect us. I would think that too, except that they have promised us--as their statement says--to involve us in the continued oversight process. They are not just giving us reviews with an understanding from us that we trust them completely. Represntatives from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign will be reporting back to the broader group after every meeting (the first three have already been scheduled for later this month).

I do applaud your word-play, though.

[Haunted]

There are a number of reasons that the University is phrasing the water demand in terms of Sustainability. First, they want to save face and make it seem as though the occupation had no influence on them (a lie--their final statement was actually the result of three sets of negotiations, with them giving ground after every meeting).

So we're into conspiracy theory territory now? The university is lying to us, the protesters really did claim a massive victory after all?

Because they have not said they will cancel their Eden Springs contract is not necessarily a defeat.

Yes it is. The goal was to cancel the Eden Springs contract, the contract has not been cancelled, ergo a defeat.

Their statement does express a commitment to moving past bottled water

I could express any number of commitements it if would silence some malcontents.

The Dean of the Bute has already expressed a desire to meet with us. Moreover, we have a signed letter from the Proctor saying that if we organize a supply drive, he will send an e-mail to faculty and staff from across the University encouraging them to donate relief supplies.

Well pardon me, if they will commit to sending a whole email then this really is a victory worth celebrating.

[777]

Let me use this space once more to strongly encourage everyone debating this topic who has not yet done so to go to LCH, if only for a few minutes, and actually have a look for yourself. Not only will you find that the majority of the people there are interesting to talk to (and many are more than happy to debate their point with you, should you be after that kind of thing, and will certainly not point a camera in your face and scream "brutality" over and over again should you disagree with them), you will also find that apart from a generally similar theme, there is really nothing in common between how they did things in New York, and how the occupiers act here.

I challenge you to head there and find out for yourself.

How many rose to the challenge?

[Lukey2]

Excellent. Now we can stop being a laughing stock of other Universities whose students care about real issues that affect them and their lives.

Just out of curiosity, why would we be a laughing stock of other Universities if these occupations have been a nation-wide phenomenon? With the addition of Plymouth, 22 Universities have engaged in occupations since the conflict in Gaza began. This University doing research for un-ethical companies and/or buying things from them does affect our lives insofar as it affects the moral character of this institution (the values of which have already been embedded in our pre-existent ethical investment policy).

Thank you for your curiosity.

Companies like BAE Systems are fine British companies whose employment this country badly needs in times of a recession. Surely the St Andrews Left Society supports the employment of as many people as possible, not putting pressure on a firm that is giving much needed support to our struggling jobs market. Similarly Eden Springs has closed a bottling plant in East Lothian already, more jobs gone, jobs that put Scottish water into Scottish bottles for sale in Scotland without a wiff of the Holy Land there.

The University is already addressing its ethical and moral investment and procurement if I am to believe those from Estates who lecture on the Sustainable Development degree programme. The white noise the University have spun you allows them to continue the gradual contract replacement and cost-effective solutions they were always looking for.

Phenomenon is the wrong word. Your occupation was not a phenomenon here - if it was I would expect more than 1% of the student body to be actively involved. I do not take Facebook group membership as an example of support. When I look at my groups I see some that I should really weed out because I joined them when clearing out requests, not because it's something I care about. Unless there are 5, 10 or even 20% of students at other institutions participating in their occupations there is nothing phenomenal about it and I'd imagine there is the same apathy at these places as there is here.

Quote of the day goes to my flatmate 10 minutes ago when I said the occupation was at last over. She replied 'What occupation?' She is not alone.

I agree with your last point about the majority of people not knowing about the occupation. That said, I think there is a world of difference between the claim that most people were un-aware of it and the claim that most people were opposed to it (again, I was responding to Pambo speaking like the pope on behalf of everyone). I still maintain that there is no reliable way to quantify popular support, and that the petition--which people continued to sign throughout the occupation--remains semi-solid evidence of general feelings, more so than any other measurements that have been suggested (hearsay, Thesinner, what Pambo thinks, etc.)

There is a wiff of the Holy Land in East Lothian. The British division of Eden Springs is a subsidiary of the Israeli company, so all its profits are ultimately shipped home. The British subsidiary is obviously supporting the parent company, and it is irrefutable that the parent company is in breach of international law (extracting natural resources from an occupied area). As part of its Ethical Investment policy, the University divested from BAE systems. Its jobs notwithstanding, surely if the University is too moral to give it money, it is also too moral to take its money?

[Lukey2]

So we're into conspiracy theory territory now? The university is lying to us, the protesters really did claim a massive victory after all?[/quote]

Negotiations are about compromise. Although the University is eager to convince everyone that it didn't give an inch, neither the concessions they have given nor the reviews that are already underway would have happened if not for the occupation.Yeah, the scholarships won't be to Palestianians specifically, but because the occupation has begun to develop ties with the Islamic University of Gaza, we can make sure that the conflict zone scholarships are thoroughly advertised. We have had to meet them half way on a number of demands, but meeting them half way is closer than we were to our objectives compared to 8 days ago. They have not promised to move past bottled water in order to to deceive us into giving up. It is a commitment in writing that they can be held to, and it will result, in the end, with this University no longer buying Eden Springs. That gives us what we want so we don't care incredibly about The University's phrasing of it.

I think the Proctor requesting people to donate is actually a real victory. It will have the practical result of this University donating supplies that will end up in Gaza, which is basically what our demand requested.

[Haunted]

Negotiations are about compromise. Although the University is eager to convince everyone that it didn't give an inch, neither the concessions they have given nor the reviews that are already underway would have happened if not for the occupation.

They gave you a couple of meetings and an email? The university employed a classic tactic by the sounds of things, giving you things that they make seem uber important and hard to part with but actually cost (and mean to them) fuckall.

Yeah, the scholarships won't be to Palestianians [sic] specifically

THEY AREN'T GIVING ANY SCHOLARSHIPS. They said they would possibly help YOU to fund raise for scholarships that would have to be open to the entire planet.

We have had to meet them half way on a number of demands, but meeting them half way is closer than we were to our objectives than we were 8 days ago.

Even calling it "half way" is a massive piece of propaganda.

It is a commitment in writing that they can be held to, and it will result, in the end, with this University no longer buying Eden Springs.

Held to by whom, you? Even so, they have only committed to examine the contract, this is entirely different to what you're spinning.

I think the Proctor requesting people to donate is actually a real victory. It will have the practical result of this University donating supplies that will end up in Gaza, which is basically what our demand requested.

I'm not sure you know just how non-committal an email is. With the cut throat industry of research the way it is I think you'll be hard pressed to find many professors/researchers giving up good kit on the whim of a general email (though we shall have to wait and see). Even so, this is hardly the university doing anything this is just them sending a non-committal email suggestion.

[Hennessy]

Yadayadayada. You're gone now, I bet you thank your lucky stars that the University was so accommodating to you even if they brushed off your petty demands, I hope if Louise Richardson ever reads this she'll know next time the soft touch will only garner contempt for her on both sides.

Did someone say a mass wank was on the agenda next at LCH?

[Lukey2]

Negotiations are about compromise. Although the University is eager to convince everyone that it didn't give an inch, neither the concessions they have given nor the reviews that are already underway would have happened if not for the occupation.

They gave you a couple of meetings and an email? The university employed a classic tactic by the sounds of things, giving you things that they make seem uber important and hard to part with but actually cost (and mean to them) fuckall.

Yeah, the scholarships won't be to Palestianians [sic] specifically

THEY AREN'T GIVING ANY SCHOLARSHIPS. They said they would possibly help YOU to fund raise for scholarships that would have to be open to the entire planet.

We have had to meet them half way on a number of demands, but meeting them half way is closer than we were to our objectives than we were 8 days ago.

Even calling it "half way" is a massive piece of propaganda.

It is a commitment in writing that they can be held to, and it will result, in the end, with this University no longer buying Eden Springs.

Held to by whom, you? Even so, they have only committed to examine the contract, this is entirely different to what you're spinning.

I think the Proctor requesting people to donate is actually a real victory. It will have the practical result of this University donating supplies that will end up in Gaza, which is basically what our demand requested.

I'm not sure you know just how non-committal an email is. With the cut throat industry of research the way it is I think you'll be hard pressed to find many professors/researchers giving up good kit on the whim of a general email (though we shall have to wait and see). Even so, this is hardly the university doing anything this is just them sending a non-committal email suggestion.

I don't really understand your last point (or rather, you have not understood the issue, and aren't making any sense). The promised e-mail is in reference to to the donation of supplies, which will have an immediate effect on the situation in Gaza. The research funding is another matter entirely. Yes, they have promised reviews, but representatives from PSC and the SA will be present at all of them. It's worth mentioning, though, that the SA has already backed an ethical procurement and research policy, which would, if passed, have the ultimately effect of removing BAE from campus. Because there is already an ethical investment policy, there is a strong precedent for an ethical research policy. As I already mentioned, St.Andrews divested from BAE as a result of its ethical investment policy, so it is laughably incoherent for the University to take money from them for research.
Just in case you missed it in their e-mail, "The University has a stated aim of moving towards sustainable water supply." In addition to reviewing the ethics of Eden Springs, they have already said that bottled water is not to be in their future for very long (which, as I already said, will have the actual effect of eliminating them from campus).

I think what you don't understand is that our ending the occupation is not us going home and doing nothing. We plan to take full advantage of University's written promise to include us in all levels of negotiation. As our press release said, this is just the beginning.

One of the three upcoming meetings is with the University's scholarship people. Although I have not been as involved in the negotiations as some, the informal word is that the conflict area scholarships will be made part of the 600th anniversary fundraising drives. Given that they have promised in writing to cooperate on that demand, I think your pissing on that particular parade is just the sort of venom that is symptomatic of your sunny disposition.

You never took the occupation seriously, so you resent that both the University and the SA are granting us legitimacy. You're the propagandist.

[Freaker]

Let me use this space once more to strongly encourage everyone debating this topic who has not yet done so to go to LCH, if only for a few minutes, and actually have a look for yourself. Not only will you find that the majority of the people there are interesting to talk to (and many are more than happy to debate their point with you, should you be after that kind of thing, and will certainly not point a camera in your face and scream "brutality" over and over again should you disagree with them), you will also find that apart from a generally similar theme, there is really nothing in common between how they did things in New York, and how the occupiers act here.

I challenge you to head there and find out for yourself.

How many rose to the challenge?

Jono is one I know of, although that was a few nights before my post. Not knowing the real people behind many of the sinner screen names, and not being there myself for more than a few minutes on 6 days out of the 8, I really don't know. I did witness a fair bit of debate outside LCH on many days, always refreshing. I would hope for their own sake that many did rise to the challenge, shame really if they didn't.

Thing is over now. Funny we're still stuck in debate. Can we not just be pleased with the results, either pleased that it is over now, or pleased with the outcomes? The university giving 'commitments' is more than there was before, setting up scholarship funds is more than there ever has been at this university. Think of the occupation and the methods used what you like - are there really sinners out there who think commitments to look into ethical research funding, setting up scholarship funds etc are bad things? If so, speak out, and let's hear it in the issue. If you have a specific opinion, heck, even get involved and help shape what will come from this - any committee that would be established will have student representation. And if you so truly believe in the processes outlined at the bottom of the university's email and are opposed to the university's final response - use those channels to make your own voice and opinion heard as well and make the difference.

The occupation is over, maybe it's now time for some sinners to get over it.

[Lukey2]

Jono is one I know of, although that was a few nights before my post. Not knowing the real people behind many of the sinner screen names, and not being there myself for more than a few minutes on 6 days out of the 8, I really don't know. I did witness a fair bit of debate outside LCH on many days, always refreshing. I would hope for their own sake that many did rise to the challenge, shame really if they didn't.

Thing is over now. Funny we're still stuck in debate. Can we not just be pleased with the results, either pleased that it is over now, or pleased with the outcomes? The university giving 'commitments' is more than there was before, setting up scholarship funds is more than there ever has been at this university. Think of the occupation and the methods used what you like - are there really sinners out there who think commitments to look into ethical research funding, setting up scholarship funds etc are bad things? If so, speak out, and let's hear it in the issue. If you have a specific opinion, heck, even get involved and help shape what will come from this - any committee that would be established will have student representation. And if you so truly believe in the processes outlined at the bottom of the university's email and are opposed to the university's final response - use those channels to make your own voice and opinion heard as well and make the difference.

The occupation is over, maybe it's now time for some sinners to get over it.

Hear, hear!

[Haunted]

I don't really understand your last point (or rather, you have not understood the issue, and aren't making any sense).

What you are calling supplies, I am calling equipment (or kit). Confusion solved. You are still asking a research intense department to part with equipment.

"The University has a stated aim of moving towards sustainable water supply." In addition to reviewing the ethics of Eden Springs, they have already said that bottled water is not to be in their future for very long (which, as I already said, will have the actual effect of eliminating them from campus).

Can you not see the gulf between "the university would like to do x if possible" and "we demand the university do y!"? Last I heard the university had a "commitment to sustainability" long before this last week.

I think what you don't understand is that our ending the occupation is not us going home and doing nothing. We plan to take full advantage of University's written promise to include us in all levels of negotiation. As our press release said, this is just the beginning.

What does all levels mean exactly? You think they'll have you sitting right their next time they renew their water contract? Asking you for sage ethical advice hmm? From their email it sounds as though they've committed (by committed we of course mean, booked some time) to discussions only, not a negotiation over university policy. Spin spin spin.

You never took the occupation seriously, so you resent that both the University and the SA are granting us legitimacy. You're the propagandist.

I was one of the few sinners who supported this action initially (see page 3 or 4) but have since become completely disenfranchised by the sheer amount of bullshit and hypocrisy coming from the group. You'll spin absolutely anything to paint yourselves as heroes. You sound exactly like politicians trying to sell a bad deal and pretending you did all the work. This is a sad week for student activism.

[777]

Let me use this space once more to strongly encourage everyone debating this topic who has not yet done so to go to LCH, if only for a few minutes, and actually have a look for yourself. Not only will you find that the majority of the people there are interesting to talk to (and many are more than happy to debate their point with you, should you be after that kind of thing, and will certainly not point a camera in your face and scream "brutality" over and over again should you disagree with them), you will also find that apart from a generally similar theme, there is really nothing in common between how they did things in New York, and how the occupiers act here.

I challenge you to head there and find out for yourself.

How many rose to the challenge?

Jono is one I know of, although that was a few nights before my post. Not knowing the real people behind many of the sinner screen names, and not being there myself for more than a few minutes on 6 days out of the 8, I really don't know. I did witness a fair bit of debate outside LCH on many days, always refreshing. I would hope for their own sake that many did rise to the challenge, shame really if they didn't.

Thing is over now. Funny we're still stuck in debate. Can we not just be pleased with the results, either pleased that it is over now, or pleased with the outcomes? The university giving 'commitments' is more than there was before, setting up scholarship funds is more than there ever has been at this university. Think of the occupation and the methods used what you like - are there really sinners out there who think commitments to look into ethical research funding, setting up scholarship funds etc are bad things? If so, speak out, and let's hear it in the issue. If you have a specific opinion, heck, even get involved and help shape what will come from this - any committee that would be established will have student representation. And if you so truly believe in the processes outlined at the bottom of the university's email and are opposed to the university's final response - use those channels to make your own voice and opinion heard as well and make the difference.

The occupation is over, maybe it's now time for some sinners to get over it.

Thank you for answering my question

[irish200]

I was one of the few sinners who supported this action initially (see page 3 or 4) but have since become completely disenfranchised by the sheer amount of bullshit and hypocrisy coming from the group. You'll spin absolutely anything to paint yourselves as heroes. You sound exactly like politicians trying to sell a bad deal and pretending you did all the work. This is a sad week for student activism.

Its crap like this that makes that the case:

Currently going around taking stock of our successes, planning for future campaigning, and, yeah, giving ourselves a bit of a pat on the back. Success, victory, celebration!

[David Bean]

I'm sorry, but that press release the mob let out, and Harry's subsequent message, was a pile of lies. First of all, the University made no concession whatsoever on the non-Palestinian Eden Springs issue: the statement said that they intend to monitor the sustainability of the products it's supplied with, on that contract as well as every other one. Claiming that's the same thing as an admittance that the current practice is unsustainable is like saying that someone who wants to start spell-checking their essays must be dyslexic. Likewise the continuance of an ongoing review of ethical issues relating to research partnerships is in no way a concession that its current practices are unethical; do the protesters have a problem with basic English comprehension?

Thirdly Harry's claim that the University's commitment to providing scholarships to students with the academic ability to be at St Andrews but who have been affected by conflict "is going to ensure scholarships for Palestinians" is an egregious lie; it won't ensure anything of the sort. Obviously should such a Palestinian student apply for the scholarship and be successful then such a scholarship would indeed have been given to a Palestinian, but this is lightyears away - and lightyears better - than the foully discriminatory policy advocated by the protesters. Indeed, once these scholarships have been set up we may hope to welcome a Palestinian AND an Israeli, and then maybe we might start to make a real contribution to mutual understanding and peace in that region.

The commitment to continuing to enter into academically fruitful relationships with universities across the world was a reiteration of standing policy, ditto the point regarding charitable giving. And the medical supplies, apparently tacked on as an afterthought at the end but probably the most substantive 'victory' the protesters won, we can imagine could easily have been got without a hint of all this hullabaloo.

I said I respected the protesters' civility, but what I can't respect is when they come back after being near-comprehensively rebuffed and then lie, and lie, and lie again about the outcome. Small wonder their aversion to democracy; in a democratic system these lies have a nasty habit of coming out, and as for Harry's claim that the processes of student politics are not democratic, one can only assume his definition of 'democracy' involves a contest he can actually manage to win.

The University's response was entirely correct in stating that these issues could and should have been dealt with through the proper channels, and I can only hope that Harry's deluded beliefs that the occupation 'worked' will not infect any others with the desire to repeat this sorry episode.

Oh yes, and, Lurkey2, since you're so eager to engage with people who set out reasoned disagreements with you, might I trouble you for a response to my rebuttal of your six 'demands', as set out on page 20?

[Haunted]

Thing is over now. Funny we're still stuck in debate. Can we not just be pleased with the results, either pleased that it is over now, or pleased with the outcomes? The university giving 'commitments' is more than there was before, setting up scholarship funds is more than there ever has been at this university. Think of the occupation and the methods used what you like - are there really sinners out there who think commitments to look into ethical research funding, setting up scholarship funds etc are bad things? If so, speak out, and let's hear it in the issue. If you have a specific opinion, heck, even get involved and help shape what will come from this - any committee that would be established will have student representation. And if you so truly believe in the processes outlined at the bottom of the university's email and are opposed to the university's final response - use those channels to make your own voice and opinion heard as well and make the difference.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the university's response. Though had I been an "occupator" I would have more than a few misgivings if my comrades tried to sell this to me as a "victory worth celebrating".
Guest put it best.

We believe that all the issues should have been raised, and could have been resolved, through the existing processes of dialogue between the Students Association and the University, which we continue to value as proper, democratic, fully representative of the student body, and accountable to it.

The occupation is over, maybe it's now time for some sinners to get over it.

Of course, lest we remember the utter failure that it was.