How nice it is to see the SU media engines whirring away.
Storm is broadcasting wonderful things from the shiny new studio. I was invited on last night to talk about the infernal RAG strippers and why the Exec has decided to ban them. I went down there armed with my trusty constitution; I like having a document people can't argue with.
I am, however, being forced to do all the legal and health and safety bits, even the damned presentation about what Storm is, before I can have my own show. Apparently I'm not allowed to just do the legal test on my computer (where the main copy is stored) in case I look the answers up on Google. Google seems like a silly place to look for them when they're in the Storm folder right beside me.
Seren is due to go to print on Thursday so I'm proofreading away and providing our poor stressed editor with photos and paracetamol. I even wrote my very first article for Seren.
And we've got lots of press releases whirring around Bangor, so hopefully the Mail will have an article about Storm and Serendipity this week, and the University web marketing team have put articles about both Storm FM and SVB online in the past few days.
-
Who she?
I'm Carolan, 23, working in London. I like cheese, exercising, music, dogs, detective stories and people. I don't like packing, unpacking, repacking or really anything to do with moving all my possessions from a to b. London smells but has many things to do in it.
My Life in Pictures
Blast from the past
-
▼
2007
(86)
-
▼
February
(13)
- This is shaping up to be a bad week.For a start, m...
- My driving licence has arrived, so British road us...
- I've spent about half an hour today standing on a ...
- Council went very smoothly last night. I expected ...
- See? It's not that messy.
- Went to the comedy night in Academi for the first ...
- I've had quite a lovely weekend. It started with a...
- My desk is now tidy. Ha!
- Well, this is it, first candidates' briefing in tw...
- Mmmm, Ann just saved my evening. I was feeling tir...
- I shouldn't really go out the night before I have ...
- How nice it is to see the SU media engines whirrin...
- Well that's that then
-
▼
February
(13)
-
▼
2007
(86)
13 comments:
Hate to break it to you Carolan, but surely banning the strippers is unconstitutional. I have just sat here and read the constitution. There is nothing that I can see that would mean that a society could not have them at an event. In fact if they wanted to have them there and people wish to attend an event with strippers the constitution says they should be able to:
From Schedule 5 - Equal Opportunities Policy
"2.1 To encourage a community where all individuals can contribute without fear of discriminatory or
unfair attitudes and practices."
People who want to take their clothes off to cheesy music are allowed to by this statement. People who wish to attend this event should be allowed to by this statement. Noone is denied any rights should a stripper event take place. However, it could be intrepretated that if people want this event and they are denied, they have had their rights denied.
We're not stopping anyone taking their clothes off, nor are we stopping anyone attending a strip club. Anyone can do that anytime. What we are doing is refusing to allow Students' Union money to be used for this event, something which we, as trustees of the Union (see Article 5, 2.1) are fully entitled to do.
Also, I think you've misinterpreted the Equal Opps Policy. The idea of the policy is to stop people being ostracised and treated unfairly, not to stop us having policy on absolutely everything. Following your logic we're discriminating against, say, ice-skaters because we don't fund an ice-skating club, or even (to really push this logic to the extreme) criminals because we don't condone law-breaking.
Council (according to Article 4, 3.2) "is empowered to make Union policy", which is exactly what this stance on strippers is. The Executive originally made the decision, something we are entitled to do since we look after the day-to-day running of the Union, but the decision has been strengthened by Council's backing.
If you want to challenge Council's ruling on anything I suggest you attend the next Council meeting on February 20th.
I'm sorry about the legal tests, we offer the same to any other returning presenter, though.
You won't have the presentation on what Storm is and it's history.
Trustee:
1. a person, usually one of a body of persons, appointed to administer the affairs of a company, institution, etc.
2. a person who holds the title to property for the benefit of another.
Yes, you look after the money and you give it out but being a trustee does not mean you can pass judgement on where it goes.
If people wanted an ice-skating society and fulfilled the SU regulations for opening the society you would have to fund it. But we're not talking about societies. You cannot support criminals as it is against not only your constitution but the country's law and basic human rights to aid in such activity.
However the Equal Opps Policy says that all members of a community must be able to contribute. A community is bigger than a university. So whether the strippers come from the uni or just the general community they are allowed to. I have have it on fairly good authority that one reason they weren't allowed as it was decided it was "demeaning", this is purely opinion. Those students who do not see strippers as anything wrong, bad or even remotely demeaning are being discriminated against as they are efffectively being told that their opinion is wrong.
I'm not denying that coucil 'is empowered to make Union policy' what I am saying is that this is not a policy they are allowed to make.
Effectively what has been done is that people's opinions are discounted as unimportant and one universal rule has been made enforcing what other people think 'should' be allowed. One person or group of people making other people comply to their own opinions is not a democratic union, its fascism.
I would also say that not allowing the event to go ahead is shooting yourself in the foot. It is actually something different for once. It is actually the SU doing something interesting for once. Now it's not happening.
Last year there was a 'Fetish Night' event, this is nothing more sexual than that, nothing that can be considered more 'demeaning' than that. I also know that Loughborough University makes nights with Strippers a regular event, they are popular.
It is people's choice as to whether they attend an event with strippers. Just as it is their choice as to whether they chose to attend a fetish themed event. Just as it is their decision as to go to an indie music event or a cheese music event. It should be their choice, not the exec's and not the council's.
>>One person or group of people making other people comply to their own opinions is not a democratic union, its fascism.<<
No it isn't, it's merely a trait of fascism. Fascism is an extension of radical nationalism and can not be defined by the particular trait, since this trait can also be applied to all monarchies and so on. And a monarchy is not fascist necessarily.
Sorry, I had to say it. Sensationalism annoys me.
And could you also clear up the following comment:
>>I have have it on fairly good authority that one reason they weren't allowed as it was decided it was "demeaning", this is purely opinion.<<
Sounds like 'a friend of a friend', and even if it were true it would still be irrelevant. 'One of the reasons' does not make it the primary motivation, or indeed an important one at all.
It isn't my place to comment on the position of the executive, but you appear to have selective sight, since from my very brief look at your constitution following trustee it says the exec:
"Have control over all expenditure of the Union...(subject to
Union Council approval and any other specific provision of this constitution)"
However, I could be totally wrong since there could be specific provision elsewhere.
Your interpretation of trustee is quite interesting, since the definition of trustee does not in fact exclude administration and decision-making, which you someone presume comes from the definition you provided.
For further information on trustees I'll refer you to these two articles, particularly the latter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee_model_of_representation
Now back to study for me
(damn blogger and its lack of bbcode)
Okay, yes fascism was an exageration, but it's called rhetoric my friend. I think 'sensationist' is a bit harsh. I'm considering this a healthy debate, in a debate you're trying to prove or persuade. This is what rhetoric is for. But if you look at the definition of fascism there are no other 'traits' than what I mentionned:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
I have been told what happened by people who were at the council. I don't think it is fair for me to name these people. If they wish to voice an opinion here or elsewhere it is them who should do it not me. So no, not a friend of a friend but by first person accounts.
But yes they were disallowed by the opinion of being demeaning and because it was decided that charities may not want the money. Noone I know from the council has mentionned anything other than these two things. As I have said, 'demeaning' is a matter of opinion. I don't think stripping is demeaning, neither do those who are doing it, nor do many other students here. Quite the majority in fact, based on those who I have spoken to. In fact I haven't spoken to a single person who agrees with the ban. Also, charities turning away money? Unlikely. I doubt I'd be going out on a limb here by saying that noone will actually be harmed in any way by the event. The charities are unlikely to decide to let the children in Africa to continue to die from dirty water, or let people continue to sleep on the streets or allow teens strap hamsters to fireworks just because a few students saw a stripper troup doing the full monty in their union.
If there were any other reasons why the stipping is not allowed I feel we should be told.
As for my 'selective sight', Carolan referred me to Article 5, 2.1, which I dutifully read. No mention was made of 2.3 so no i did not read it. But I have rechecked my definition of trustee. I got it from a dictionary. It does not exclude decision making, but it certainly doesn't include it either.
Try through an analogy: If you set up a trust fund in a bank for a neice or nephew the bank becomes the 'trustee'. Is the bank allowed to tell your relative what they're allowed to spend that money on? Should they be allowed to?
So I have come to the university and have paid a portion of the money in question. The SU is the trustee. the look after the money and give it back to me and the other students who have paid by putting on these events. The sU are 'administrative' that means they 'administer'. This is defined as giving out, once again there is no actual decision making involved.
Even if they do have control over the money getting given out by the constitution it still does not technically imply that they can decide on basis of opinion and pure guesswork as to what may or may not happen. If they can decide whether we get the money I do not believe that what they are going on is grounds enough.
I've read both the wikipedia articles. The first agrees with my definition of trustee. The second lays out a model of how representation works. From the statistics portion of my Maths A-Level I have had it drummed into me that a model is created to try and explain how something works and quite often prove a very flawed representation. They are descriptive rather than definitive.
So yes by definition, a trustee has no say over where the funds they are entrusted with goes. As your model shows what can happen is the elected representative can either ignore or not even bother about what those they are supposed to represent actually want. Surely when this happens they are not at all representative of the opinions of the people they are stand for. In fact if you look at what happened to the creator of that model you'll see the people became disenamoured with the representative and he was not re-elected. Let's hope that the SU exec don't fall into the same fate over strippers.
I'm not able to comment on the centre part of your reply, since I don't know enough about the situation, I merely am contesting your very shaky definitions. And I agree that you shouldn't name those people, it was just that in your original statement it sounded 'friend of a friend'. I just wanted confirmation.
From the link you gave me the definition of fascism includes the follwing:
"and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
I don't think Carolan is racist or overly nationlist, and not really aggressive. At least I hope not.
I'm just picky about fascism because people use it too much in accusations when it is blatantly not true. And I've had to write numerous essays on it in the past few weeks, so I have a grudge against misunderstanding of the ideas behind it.
>>So yes by definition, a trustee has no say over where the funds they are entrusted with goes.<<
>>I've read both the wikipedia articles. The first agrees with my definition of trustee.<<
No since the definition you implied is that a trustee can not be given and is never given control over funds. The wikipedia on trustees clearly points out that this is not the case. Trustees aren't always given control. Trustees can be given decision-making power over the funds etc. they are given.
Basically what I'm trying to point out is that whether they are 'trustees' or not is in fact irrelevant, since this does not limit their power(for want of a better word) to control those funds.
What has more releance is the follwing that I shall repeat:
"Have control over all expenditure of the Union...(subject to
Union Council approval and any other specific provision of this constitution)"
>>The sU are 'administrative' that means they 'administer'. This is defined as giving out, once again there is no actual decision making involved.<<
Oxford dictionary:
--attend to the organization or implementation of.--
Administer is usually used to mean 'give out' in the context of medicine nowadays and not with administrative bodies.
What students think and your comments on "guesswork" are not my area I'm afraid.
And having re-read my previous post I'm sorry it sounded so accusatory. That's what comes from having to study maths for 3 hours.
Okay... trying for short post this time...
Carolan is a lovely person, so no definitely not rasist or a fascist. I'd like to say I never said that that the SU exec are fascist, just that denying someone their own opinions or choices is the main, if not only, defining trait of fascism. To me this is what the situation feels like. My choice about whether or not I wanted to see the strippers has effectively been taken out of my hands.
The definition of trustee does not specifically disallow the trustee decisions about the allocation of funds but it doesn't say they can have it either. You OED definition still does not IMHO actually say that administrative entities get a decision over how, where, why etc. It only says that they are responsible for actually doing it.
I do not feel that what I have been told about the reasons for not allowing the stipper event are justification for the decision. If we can make our own minds up about fetish nights and Ann Summer's parties well frankly this is no different and we are big enough and ugly enough to make up our own minds in this matter too.
People stripping surely cannot be classed as demeaning and disallowable in a SU event if bondage gear, spanking booths and the sale of sex toys are not.
If it is accepted that yes the exec can make decisions about the allocation of money (though this is NOT because they are 'trustees' or 'adminstrative' that they have this power) then the reasons for these decisions should be justafiable. I do not agree that they were in this case.
okay, so not as short as I'd hoped.
Deary me, look away for one moment and the whole thing gets out of hand.
You're selectively choosing your definition of 'trustee', Alex. Dictionary.com tells me that a trustee can be:
A member of a board elected or appointed to direct the funds and policy of an institution.
This is precisely what we are.
One person or group of people making other people comply to their own opinions is not a democratic union, its fascism.
This statement is quite baffling, my dear. The Executive (who, incidentally, do not have voting rights on Council) are elected by cross-campus ballot, and Council members are elected at the General Meetings. All elected to decide on Union policy. What's undemocratic about that? It's quite a standard way for governments to function: we elect a group of people to make decisions for us. We don't expect Tony to consult every single one of us before he proposes a new law, and even if he did not everyone would agree. That's why we elect people to make decisions. I note you're not on Council yourself; as a wise old car company used to say, Hate Something Change Something.
If people wanted an ice-skating society and fulfilled the SU regulations for opening the society you would have to fund it.
Thankfully, that's not true. We don't have to affiliate every club who comes along and fulfills the requirements. If we did we'd bankrupt ourselves. The decision is up to the Societies Committee or the AU Committee, and is mostly based on sustainability and funding requirements (and whether we can meet them).
Anyway, I'm sorry that your informants didn't listen to the entire discussion or perhaps chose to report what happened selectively. One problem was with the bit in the Equal Opps policy which says
This Students' Union aims ...
5.1.2 To promote an environment where people are respected.
The opinion of Council was that strippers are not conducive to such an environment. Contrary to what you believe, quite a lot of people I've spoken to are really rather uncomfortable with the idea of strippers, and would feel unhappy with the idea that their Students' Union was running such a night.
We were also concerned about the negative publicity this would generate for the Union amongst the students and staff of the University and amongst the local community.
By all means, Alex, go watch strippers, but don't do it at a Union-run event.
I think what council was trying to say wasn't that strippers were unacceptable but that using Union Money to pay for them was.
This is something council can do.
As carolan said if you want to make a change why dont you come along to the next council session?
No I'm not on council... anymore activities and high windows would start to look inviting! Lol!
Obviously I have managed to misunderstand assorted definitions and I'm just going to leave it at that. Brain frazlement and sleep deprivation'll do that to ya.
I feel bad that I became quite so angered if I was only fed a one-sided argument by those present at council.
I don't even want to attend a stripper event but I still disagree with the decision that was made. I can't see how it can wrong to fund an event with strippers if an event was funded at which fetish wear was encouraged and I could pay money for a turn in a spanking booth. Or if there are fully sanctionned regular Ann Summers parties where I can buy sex toys and sexual acts, I am told, are pantomimed on the toys during the party. Only I actually -can't- attend these parties because if I do it becomes an illegal orgy.
There is just too much precedent, in my opinion, to logically not allow for the strippers.
I'm really sorry for carrying on like some one trick pony but I just feel that, ignoring misunderstood definitions and what people can or cannot do, the decision is just inconsistent which just isn't fair on those who wanted to go to the event.
Oh and 'hate something change something'? Damn you Carolan... that's going to be stuck in my head for a frigging week now!
Spanking booths?! I hadn't heard about that!
I do agree that inconsistency isn't a good thing, and I'm rather hoping that one of our councillors is going to follow through on his offer to bring a policy motion clarifying our position to the next Council meeting. I think we do need to set down what is and is not acceptable, and make that consistent throughout.
I'm going to weigh in on this one I think. I must reiterate my/our surprise that this has even been discussed so much - there are far more important things that happen in the University community on a day-to-day basis and no-one takes an interest. Perhaps you could explain why this is such a hot topic, Alex?
The Executive decided primarily that Students' Union venues wouldn't be used for a stripper night. The Executive also decided that standing committees of the Union shouldn't use strippers and other such activities to raise funds, whether for charity or not.
This was a decision made by this year's Executive, not any previous administration. I don't imagine spanking booths or somesuch would be permitted either.
This isn't fascism, this is a safeguarding of public money - we have certain rules and regulations to follow as trustees and managers of the Students' Union, and this means that money can only be spent in a certain way. The Union itself is what is known as an unincorporated association, the trustees ARE the Students' Union, they are the legal body by which the Union enters into contracts, holds assets and spends money. We trustees are individually and severally responsible to the University, to the Charities Commission and to every single student for decisions that are taken.
Ignoring the constitution for a second (although I have already got in trouble for this once this year) we have to make decisions that are good decisions for the whole of the student body. Decisions in behalf of people who want to see strippers and those who don't. Those who have moral objections and those who don't. Etc, etc. Council backed up that decision.
The Union is not a strip-club, it exists to enhance the education of UWB students - it was partly on this basis that the decision was made. It's not an embargo on any students seeing a stripper ever again, it was a decision made with the best interests of the Union and its members in mind (and throughout all of this discussion I've not seen a single argument which makes me think that the decision was a wrong one - how for instance, would a stripping night fit in with the aims and objectives of the University, or benefit the student community in general?).
And aside from all of that, I do think it's important to hear both sides of any story and discuss things thoroughly before making decisions. I think people forget that the Executive do this on a regular basis and are well-qualified to make sensible decisions given that we're all liable for actions that the Union undertakes.
Post a Comment