SU Council Motions, Mon 27th November 2006

Stabshauptmann

Miss GAAfia wrote:

Don't be so patronising, it's not appreciated.

If kate has a problem with my tone Im sure A)She could say so her self and B)She might rethink her own tone in posts both here and posts on the newswire.

Vainglory

humbert wrote:

That's ridiculous, he's dead 70 years. Christ, he's a historical figure (that feck all people have ever heard of) at this stage not your best friend.

Right. And if I used that (non) argument to justify me disrespecting Charlie Haughey's memory in 70 years, I'm sure certain people on these boards would totally accept it.

Having a certain level of respect for people who have died should not be contingent on a) whether you agree with what they did or not or b) whether you knew them personally. It's just a matter of common decency.

I don't have a problem with people arguing that Charlie Donnelly isn't worthy of mention or commemoration in UCD, or even that what he did wasn't right in itself. I'd do that myself about Charlie Haughey, for example. But I do have a problem with deliberately antagonising and disrespectful comments such as "Charlie Whatshisface", which when pointed out to the poster as being insensitive and unecessary are then repeated in a different form. I think most reasonable and decent people would agree with me here.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

I think these boards can often drop to dizzying lows but disrespecting and insulting people who have passed away really is a new personal best.

When the Charles Haughey motion came up, to send a get well card to a dying man, who was a UCD student and a former student, there issued from friends of yours calls for him to "die horribly and burn in hell".
It's amaxint that you can see past the plank in your eye.

Vainglory

And I condemned comments like that at the time, and still do. Accusing "friends of mine" of doing things, by the way, doesn't have anything to do with ME taking offence at someone using language like above.

So if you think there was something wrong with that, why not with this?

Sangre

Vainglory wrote:

I have to say, leaving the substantive issue aside, that I think it's rather disrespectful of you to say "Charlie Whatshisface". Saying "Charlie Donnelly" would make the point you are making just as well, without causing offence. Like him, hate him, or no opinion on him, he's still a young man who died, and if you used that phrase about someone from UCD who died yesterday, it would be equatable disrespect.

Well it does rather succinctly make the point that nobody has a clue who he is.

Vainglory

Sangre wrote:

Well it does rather succinctly make the point that nobody has a clue who he is.

Do you not think that saying "I don't think many students know who Charlie Donnelly is." would also make that point, without finding cause to be insensitive and potentially offensive?

singingstranger

OK, question - Vainglory, do you actually object to their currently being a memorial to Kevin Barry in the Terrace?

Sangre

Hes not well enough known for people to consider that disrespecting him might offend others.

Vainglory

No. I brought it up in order to point out the slight hypocricy of people who criticise Enda's motion for highlighting the contributions of certain individuals while ignoring similar commemorations of individual past students (also of a political nature, like Kevin Barry), that already exist in the college. I would like them to honestly argue against having a Charlie Donnelly memorial because they disagree with his politics or some other valid reason, rather than that they think it's "disgraceful" to single someone out for mention.

Vainglory

Sangre wrote:

Hes not well enough known for people to consider that disrespecting him might offend others.

Well neither (hypothetically) would Jimmy Bloggs from 2nd Ag Science be "well-known", but it still doesn't mean that I'd refer to him like that, either now or in 70 years. Call me crazy, call me decent..

singingstranger

Ah, so you don't object to their being a memorial to Kevin Barry. Then I would assume that without any other circumstances you would support it if it was to be installed this week instead. Hence I might assume that there would be a popular front of support for its construction, and a mutual common appreciation for the work/achievements/whatever Kevin Barry did in securing the foundation of the Irish Republic.

What we have here, then, simply, is a case where we simply don't have common support for a memorial. Whether it's based on Charlie Donnelly's achievements or political motivations is frankly irrelevant - it's just that most people honestly don't know who the guy is (myself included).

I don't think there's any need whatsoever to assume politicism on the part of the opponents of this motion - but as it is it's like asking UCD to erect a monument to Brian McClair. Who's Brian McClair? A former Scottish Celtic and Manchester United footballer. Probably doesn't mean a whole lot to very many people here, although to some he'd be regarded as a hero by helping Celtic win a rare late 80's championship against Rangers and by helping Man United to their first title in 26 years soon afterwards. Nevertheless, a reasonable minority would be aware of who he is. If a better case was made to educate people on what you believe Donnelly achieved, you'd have a better chance of getting support for a memorial. As it is it's just - unusually - cynicism on the part of the advocates of this motion, in my opinion anyway.

Sangre

I don't consider the term 'disrespectful' or 'insensitive' in first place so the arguement is kind of moot. I think anyone is upset by being referred to that needs a reality check.

panda100

In relation to the kevin Barry memorial in the terrace.There is a stained glass window to commemerate him here and UCD is moving it out to belfield when the terrace is no more. Thats what I think is happening anyway

HappyCrackHead

cast_iron wrote:

Self important fools:
Kevin J. Doyle Final Year School of History and Archives (The J says it all)
Hugh Doddy 1st School of Sociology

MOOOOOHAHAHAHAHAHA

Well.... I am self important... to myself. God knows anyone who doesn't consider themselves important wouldnt have a whole lot of self esteem and definitly wouldn't wanna be a third year arts class rep. Definitly not as good a one as me.

Fool? perhaps. I've been called worse in my time.

However I say "j'accuse!"

People seem to sincerely lack a sense of humour on this issue. Anyway the Motion was withdrawn you'll be glad to here. I would actually preferr if you had bothered to take interest in my other motion, the non-self important one.

But i guess it proves that people just like to bitch about crap more than discuss genuine motions that will work towards the betterment of students in UCD.

Hugs and Kisses!!!!!!
xoxoxoxoxxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
I love you all...

Kevin J. (the J. stands for "J'accuse") Doyle Final Year School of History and Archives Class Rep and a man with a sense of humour.

cast_iron

abelard wrote:

I don't think I get you. Why do you find this so offensive?

Because:

Motions wrote:

Council notes that this had had an adverse effect of societies ability to publicise events.

Motions wrote:

Council further notes the tendency for large societies to monopolise the postering space available. This is particularly damaging to small societies.

UCD is made up of more than just Socieites. And as i originally said on the matter.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Ah ****, it was an oversight nothing more.
What is your collective body and who is its head and I will write an amedment immediately.

I thought as much.
As I said, (not that i'm a rep or anything for them) all the Sports Clubs in UCD.
The head of them is the Head of Sport. (Sorry, not trying to sound like a smart-ass).

And any other groups that use the concourse to advertise.

cast_iron

HappyCrackHead wrote:

People seem to sincerely lack a sense of humour on this issue. Anyway the Motion was withdrawn you'll be glad to here. I would actually preferr if you had bothered to take interest in my other motion, the non-self important one.
.
.
.
But i guess it proves that people just like to bitch about crap more than discuss genuine motions that will work towards the betterment of students in UCD.

Again, your disillusionment almost defies belief.
So why exactly was it withdrawn? Because it was "crap" (I'm quoting you there).
Or are you saying the motion was originally a joke?

At a guess, few people have an issue with your other motion and it will probably pass. A good motion if you ask me. The more controversial ones are being discussed here.

Stabshauptmann

cast_iron wrote:

I thought as much.
As I said, (not that i'm a rep or anything for them) all the Sports Clubs in UCD.
The head of them is the Head of Sport. (Sorry, not trying to sound like a smart-ass).

Actually you just sound like a tool; if you are gonna complain about a body not being consulted, then at least know what the body is.

There is a body much like the societies council, it has a name something like the AHC. Im not gonna say "a rep from all the sports club", when I could say what ever the equivalent of Butler is.

Now, are you just taking a stab in the dark at "head of sport". There is a Director of Sport in UCD. His name is Brian Mullins but I dont think hes Butlers equivalent. I work with him on the centre club management committee.

So why I take on board the criticism, does anyone know what the body representing sports clubs is and who is its head (for sure. Is it Mullins?)

And any other groups that use the concourse to advertise.

I think I did encompass every conceivable posterer in the second half of the mandate.

Stabshauptmann

Kev, I dont believe for a minuite that it was a joke.

HappyCrackHead

To Cast Iron: And who would you be sir/madam and whom do you represent?

Explain what you percieve to be my disllusionment?

I believe you quoted me out of context with my "crap" remark. When i suggested the proposition of this motion before council it was well recieved among my peers. They were happy enough with it... I wouldn't call it a joke motion... coz it would have been funny in that case.

I'm Kevin J. Doyle and I have approved this message.

*Edit: I was kindly asked by a fellow councillor to withdraw the motion today (tuesday).

abelard

cast_iron wrote:

UCD is made up of more than just Socieites. And as i originally said on the matter.

Ok I see what you meant now. Yeah the wording wasn't perfect, but I think the spirit of the motion meant for the inclusion of the Clubs too, and any offense was unintended.

Stabshauptmann

HappyCrackHead wrote:

To Cast Iron: And who would you be sir/madam and whom do you represent?

Explain what you percieve to be my disllusionment?

I believe you quoted me out of context with my "crap" remark. When i suggested the proposition of this motion before council it was well recieved among my peers. They were happy enough with it... I wouldn't call it a joke motion... coz it would have been funny in that case.

I'm Kevin J. Doyle and I have approved this message.

*Edit: I was kindly asked by a fellow councillor to withdraw the motion today (tuesday).

Because he didnt want to be seen as a self serving, egotistical tool?

cast_iron

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Actually you just sound like a tool; if you are gonna complain about a body not being consulted, then at least know what the body is.

It's the AUC (Athletic Union Council) and I've been working with them (as a student, representing my Club) for 3 years.

The reason I didn't state the name is because you just mentioned the Head of Societies (or whatever he's called) in your motion so I just gave the relevant info to ammend your motion.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Now, are you just taking a stab in the dark at "head of sport". There is a Director of Sport in UCD. His name is Brian Mullins but I dont think hes Butlers equivalent. I work with him on the centre club management committee.

My apologies, it is 'Director' as opposed to 'Head'. But he is Richard Butler's equivalent. It was no stab in the dark. I spoke to Brian yesterday morning, and have known him for a couple of years now.

There is a very simple reason I didn't state his name - you didn't state the Societies Officer's name in your motion, so I didn't see the relevancy.

Stabshauptmann

AUC, thanks.
Yeah, but I got his title right

I'll do the ammendment now.

AngelofFire

but as it is it's like asking UCD to erect a monument to Brian McClair. Who's Brian McClair? A former Scottish Celtic and Manchester United footballer. Probably doesn't mean a whole lot to very many people here, although to some he'd be regarded as a hero by helping Celtic win a rare late 80's championship against Rangers and by helping Man United to their first title in 26 years soon afterwards.

Id be against that on a few grounds, 1.)In the Scottish League i support Heart of Midlothian 2.) Im not a Manchester United Fan. 3) Brian McClair was not a UCD Student., (the third one being the most important).

Hope Deustcheland is Treating you well.

cast_iron

HappyCrackHead wrote:

To Cast Iron: And who would you be sir/madam and whom do you represent?

A UCD student and Myself.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Explain what you percieve to be my disllusionment?

The fact that you actually thought it was a viable motion. And then thought you could pawn it off as a joke motion. Like Kaptain, I don't for 1 second believe it was meant as a joke.

Also, the fact that you seem to imply that people who criticised the motion are somehow against "the betterment of students in UCD." (I quote you here again). Wow.

I don't doubt that SU people put alot of work into what they do - just as people in Sports Clubs. But the fact is that you thought you should make it a matter of policy that you should, in effect, be "paid" for the work you do.

You do it because you want to do it, and you know it's voluntary work. No one forces you to do it. To think that you expect the students to pay you for this shows that you have lost sight of the reason you are there and what your position is actually about. Just in case you've forgotten - you're a class rep in university - that's it.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

When i suggested the proposition of this motion before council it was well recieved among my peers. They were happy enough with it...

How does that not suprise me...:rolleyes:

HappyCrackHead wrote:

*Edit: I was kindly asked by a fellow councillor to withdraw the motion today (tuesday).

Em, that's not a reason.
If a fellow councillor kindly asked you to withdraw your other motion, I doubt you would without a valid reason.
Again, I ask you, why did you withdraw it?

arbeitsscheuer

cast_iron wrote:

Em, that's not a reason.
If a fellow councillor kindly asked you to withdraw your other motion, I doubt you would without a valid reason.
Again, I ask you, why did you withdraw it?

Stop being a dick.

Sangre

I'd rather you added something more constructive than that next time you're posting seb.

Garret

I have to side with vainglory on the "Charlie Whatshisface" issue, its disrespectful, there was no need for it

not that i took offence to it, its just disrespectful

cast_iron

arbeitsscheuer wrote:

Stop being a dick.

I don't quite see how asking why a motion was withdrawn constitutes being called a d*ck.
Especially when the proposer was apparently serious about it, then claimed it was joke, then withdrew it but said it was serious.

That's a little confusing, and seems quite hypocritical if you ask me.

Blush_01

Garret wrote:

I have to side with vainglory on the "Charlie Whatshisface" issue, its disrespectful, there was no need for it

not that i took offence to it, its just disrespectful

Charlie "Whatshisface" was deliberate. I could not remember his name (because he's obviously so relevant to me, an ordinary member of the student population) and it was a device to illustrate that fact. Rather than being disrespectful of the man's memory (since he's so well remembered as is) it poked fun at the anally retentive manner in which his already lacking memory is being mandated to be celebrated by people who appear to have very little else to do than find politically driven nonsense to "entertain" reps at council with. I can't imagine the majority of UCD students would be in favour of a large amount of SU funds being contributed to remembering a guy who they feel totally and irreconcilably distanced from, or who they don't know existed. Had he been a UCD student when he died, he'd be covered under the other proposed monument to students who died while attending UCD. Instead he dropped out to pursue his political beliefs - fair play, but why should we care, really - and then died in battle. Unfortunate, but what does that have to do with us?

If that makes me disrespectful of the dead (and I can't see how it does) then so be it. The guy meant nothing to me, I mean him and his memory no ill will, but I also don't see why we should finance a memorial to him, and not do the same for the thousands of other ex-UCD students who have died in the past century. Would you consider that to be a realistic or even vaguely intelligent idea? I doubt so. But then again, maybe I'm not respecting your capacity to be an idealist either.