Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Arts Soc and B&L fined 5000 euros

Options
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭dyl10


    choppy wrote: »
    yet i dont come on here and say exactly what I think of you? id love to come on here and bring out the slags

    Art Soc are a UCD society who organise events for the public and advertise publicly. It's by no means uncalled for, for people to praise/critisise you on public forum.
    choppy wrote: »
    people enjoy themselves at these events we run and we intend to and will put them on for as long as we can as will the other society's despite what u think and that i think is the sweetest thing of all because we want to give people a good time!

    It isn't just the people whom attend/enjoy your events that are subject to your advertising.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9 choppy


    dyl10 wrote: »
    Art Soc are a UCD society who organise events for the public and advertise publicly. It's by no means uncalled for, for people to praise/critisise you on public forum.



    It isn't just the people whom attend/enjoy your events that are subject to your advertising.

    calling us tossers is not critising. its just bringing down the tone of everything. others go ahead. we seem to have become a scapegoat for these type of discussions.

    we want people to see our posters. thats what advertsing is. welcome to the real world. we have to advertise the events so people will go and we can continue to put on the events for the people who want to go and there's more of them than the people who complain which was actually zero (about the v ball poster, except for a certain someone who isnt a student). if u dont like the sound of the event, then dont go. people who think they'll get laid just because they go to a certain event are thick. I wish it was a simple as selling the idea of sex, that wud be easy. but its not. and we dont set out to do such a thing. did u even see the poster?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    choppy wrote: »
    el siglo, your ''B&L and Arts Soc - tossers'' IS OFFENSIVE. how ironic. being an arts soc committe member id appreciate a retraction of that.
    the reason its an unfair fine is
    1) the poster was up for all of 2/3 hours max. basically no one saw it. we didnt put the event on. it was changed to a rave!
    2) there is no legal precedent for this fine. it was a number plucked put of mid air. the 'intercourse' poster from law soc that week, was only fined 250 euro and that [poster (featuring a sexual image) wasnt taken down at all. there seems to be different rules for everyone.
    3) nothing was set out intenionally, that is the most ridiculous staement i think any of us has ever heard. it, 'lose your v plates', was just mant to be a catchy slogan!! if people are stupid enough to be pressured into anything because of that well..i fear what they'll do in some social situations.
    a lot of people here i believe dont have a clue about whats going on at all so unless you actually know what you're talking about...well you get the point.
    if u knew anything about it, this a huge amount of money that we really can't afford.


    Am I correct in saying that your society has not been the first ones to be forced to take down posters? Sorry for being cynical but I reckon you, along with B&L, fully knew what you were doing. You say that your posters were only up for 2 or 3 hours but that's all you needed to get free publicity in the college newspapers. But it backfired badly on you and I'm afraid to say I have no sympathy for your predicament.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9 choppy


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    Am I correct in saying that your society has not been the first ones to be forced to take down posters? Sorry for being cynical but I reckon you, along with B&L, fully knew what you were doing. You say that your posters were only up for 2 or 3 hours but that's all you needed to get free publicity in the college newspapers. But it backfired badly on you and I'm afraid to say I have no sympathy for your predicament.

    u reckon wrong. thats fact. not an opinion. u give us too much credit if u think we were thinking about getting free publicity in the college newpapar? the ol michael o'leary strategy might work out in the big world we didnt set out with any intention of harming the college enviornment. they cme down as soon as we got a chance to remove them.

    ...anyone opposed to the idea of the virginia ball? cowboys and cowgirls dress :) i joke..that wud be cheeky ha ha


  • Registered Users Posts: 45,594 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    If promoting sex is now deemed an offence, does that mean in future they will be dishing out fines to those people who hand out free condoms at freshers week?

    Or are we supposed to use them to feed the swans?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    Good thing they fined them
    Students might of found out about sex.
    Everyone knows first years have not heard of sex, and as such the fine is just.

    Plus whomever came up with this fine is a dildo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    There are a couple of aspects to this
    1. The limits of free-speech and whether or not you are allowed be offensive
    2. Whether or not a message being promoted encourages an ugly type of elitism
    3. How independent college societies are from the college authorities, and to what extent such societies must conform to the precise dictates of self appointed committees
    4. Whether or not B&L soc and the Arts soc should exist at all.




    Now in relation to B&L/Arts socs' Virgin Ball fiasco this is pretty straight forward.

    1. The poster was not inherently offensive. Simple. As. That. Whether or not something which is offensive should or should not be censored is not an issue in this instance.

    2. There is nothing elitist about having a shag. As far as I know... :rolleyes: Even then the message being promoted was a tad more ambiguous than that; I don't think anybody would have thought that the Virgin Ball = guarantee to get laid, no more than any other ball is.

    3. Now this is where the whole thing gets divisive. What relationship, fundamentally, lies between UCD and UCD socs? Socs have nothing to do with academia or the public body of the university. However, the societies are to a large part dependent upon public grants - which makes them beholden to the college authorities and the whims of public servants. So, if Martin Butler makes a retrospective rule saying that any society which used the colour blue in their posters should be fined ten thousand euro, then, technically, that seems to be within his remit. Maybe societies should attempt to move away from grants, if possible, and attempt to jettison this uncomfortable arrangement. Oh, and if the fine is larger than than the grant given, the fine itself should probably be illegal (as it is just plain theft)

    4. If you don't like B&L or Arts Soc you can just vote with your feet. I personally find B&L a bit annoying, and I know that the majority of UCD balls are pretty much a waste of space, but that's not in any shape or form the issue here. Although it might be in terms of the fine - if was designed solely to shut down the Arts society (and I can see no other rationale other than this for such a large fine).


  • Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭Zuffer


    3. Now this is where the whole thing gets divisive. What relationship, fundamentally, lies between UCD and UCD socs? Socs have nothing to do with academia or the public body of the university. However, the societies are to a large part dependent upon public grants - which makes them beholden to the college authorities and the whims of public servants.

    I like the way you break the issue down, however it is not the case that UCD socs are beholden to UCD just for the grant money. If you want to operate as a society you have to do it under the auspicies of the societies council. I can't set up the boards.ie appreciation society in UCD without going through the system and accepting the same supervision as every other society. Even if I don't want any grant and am funding it with my own money.

    As punishment for Arts/B&L, a fine was only one option. Technically they could instead have been derecognised and shut down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9 choppy


    it won't shut us down, trust me on that. we'll keep going as long as there are people who want to go to our events. you commentors there who are so against all this stuff should come along and loosen up ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    If promoting sex is now deemed an offence, does that mean in future they will be dishing out fines to those people who hand out free condoms at freshers week?

    There's a difference between encouraging sex and encouraging safe sex.....


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 338 ✭✭33% God


    Fad wrote: »
    There's a difference between encouraging sex and encouraging safe sex.....
    It was a virgin ball, everyone knows that nothing bad can happen your first time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    33% God wrote: »
    It was a virgin ball, everyone knows that nothing bad can happen your first time.

    Bit of Coca Cola in there and you'll be grand


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    Bit of Coca Cola in there and you'll be grand

    As long as you're standing on a phone book........


  • Registered Users Posts: 45,594 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    Fad wrote: »
    There's a difference between encouraging sex and encouraging safe sex.....

    So it should have been, "Virgin Ball: Now with free condoms" :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    So it should have been, "Virgin Ball: Now with free condoms" :)

    I see absolutely no problem with that..........


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


    choppy wrote: »
    El Siglo, your ''B&L and Arts Soc - tossers'' IS OFFENSIVE.

    I retract and apologise, obviously humour is lost on people nowadays.
    How ironic.

    How is it ironic? Did you learn that new word recently? Isn't a dictionary still a fine piece of equipment in this day and age with our satellites and the likes!
    being an arts soc committee member id appreciate a retraction of that.

    Not as offended as I am for your group and B&L promoting sex in this manner and you wonder why there's mental health problems in the place when you have this tripe being shoved down your throat all the time, bad enough not having a partner (or worse still being made feel like one is missing out on something), without university compounding the problem. Hence, I WILL NOT RETRACT MY STATEMENT, SAID SOCIETIES ARE STILL TOSSERS!;)
    The reason its an unfair fine is:
    1) The poster was up for all of 2/3 hours max. Basically, no one saw it. We didn't put the event on. It was changed to a rave!

    People did see the posters, regardless of length, it's like this; if one were to drop a lollipop onto the floor and claim the "three second rule", it wouldn't make a difference because the lollipop is covered with the same bacteria had it been on the ground for three hours. Hence just because you had 'your' posters up for such a short time, it was enough time to offend. I don't care if your society didn't put the event on, it was still part of this fiasco regardless. Again I don't care if it was changed to a "rave", that kind of a smoke screen or essentially bullshit (pardon my French!) isn't going to work on me.
    2) There is no legal precedent for this fine.

    There was no legal precedent for tackling criminals assets and wealth and yet we are left with the CAB, so because there's no 'legal precedent' there's no way one can be set at all and we're tied into status quo. Precedents are set, just like this one, and for the better!
    It was a number plucked put of midair.

    Prove it then, how do you know this? Ridiculous assertion to make.
    The 'intercourse' poster from Law Soc that week, was only fined 250 euro and that [poster (featuring a sexual image)] wasn't taken down at all. There seems to be different rules for everyone.

    So what if there's different rules, again law soc wasn't trying to play on the emotions of students (regardless of how you retort that was the intention and you were doing this to make money, I'm not stupid as much as you might like to think and as a great woman once told me: "Don't piss on my leg and call it rain!").
    3) Nothing was set out intentionally, that is the most ridiculous statement I think any of us has ever heard.

    How is it ridiculous? It makes perfect sense actually, first years are pretty impressionable, naïve people hence promoting such a activity would generate interest and hence attendance followed by profit (again this a synthesis I've managed to come to the conclusion to and may be open for debate).
    It, "lose your v plates", was just meant to be a catchy slogan!!

    I'm sure it was "meant to be a catchy slogan"! Again I don't care what it was meant, it was how it was perceived that counts, a page three model with her jabs out could be meant as art but in reality it's a little different isn't it?
    If people are stupid enough to be pressured into anything because of that well... I fear what they'll do in some social situations.

    As Einstein once said: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former." Human stupidity is without bounds, and more so the stupidity of first years is even more boundless*, again you can't honestly believe that peer pressure doesn't affect us at some stage, seriously it does have tremendous affects. Considering UCD is also a large version of an Irish small town (it is no matter what you think, the cliques within the place are highly prevalent) then peer pressure is going to be a factor no matter what you say.
    A lot of people here I believe don't have a clue about whats going on at all so unless you actually know what you're talking about... well you get the point.

    No I don't "get the point". So because I'm say not from Northern Ireland, I'm therefore not entitled to speak about the place or anything that happens in it? Have you ever heard the thought that it might be nice to have someone "on the outside looking in"? Again the obvious clique culture and nepotism in UCD is astounding at times, however this is prevalent in every other university in the country so nothing new there, it would be nice for the students of "Ireland's premier university" to break the mould but not with groups like this operating.
    If you knew anything about it, this a huge amount of money that we really can't afford.

    How do you know I don't know? Maybe, I too, am a member of one of these societies and I'm criticising them anonymously. What would you have done with the money anyway? Most likely wasted it, we would still see advertisements for parties which are really drink promos in a Dublin nightclub and that's about it really, maybe a 'ball' but even then this a push. No, I think giving money to SWF is indeed the best thing to come from this situation, you've actually helped more people by doing this than anything else. However, given you've just went on a tantrum like some spoiled brat of John O'Donoghue-esque proportions I'd say you've learned nothing and will continue to defend this. Just call it a day, lick your wounds and be happy that some poor (I mean actually poor, not the "I got focked in D2 last night and I'm now totally broke") student can actually pay his/her rent this month or actually eat an adequate meal.

    I personally checked your spelling because it just shows, if you can't even defend your petty little society after being fined a hefty €2,500 in a coherent fashion, how are you ever going to serve your members in any decent fashion? Poorly it would seem!:D

    Also a concluding comment, UCD is a university not a knocking shop!

    *Apologies first years, please don't take it personal, but seriously ye are still on the immature side of things even if you're mature students!:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭Jev/N


    El Siglo, I can only speak for myself but that has to be one of the most arrogant, ignorant and condescending posts I have ever seen on this or any of the others forums on boards.

    I could go through your post with a fine-toothed comb and pick out all the grammatical and punctuational errors but i won't bother as I'm not that sad.

    Fair enough, argue your case but don't start pointing out silly little posting errors and dishing out insolent and patronising little quips just to get digs in.

    I'm not going to get into the argument because it would appear that you see no merit in the existence of either of these societies and thus, I think you'll disagree with anyone's alternate view as a result. As we have seen from other posts, there's no objectivity when it comes to this for you and it just seems to me that whatever happens to either of the aforementioned societies will be greeted with a response akin to "well they fúcking deserve it".


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    choppy wrote: »
    2) there is no legal precedent for this fine. it was a number plucked put of mid air. the 'intercourse' poster from law soc that week, was only fined 250 euro and that [poster (featuring a sexual image) wasnt taken down at all. there seems to be different rules for everyone.

    Legal precedent? You sound like a fight the powar knob to be honest.

    I think its funny though; the reason you were fined 5k is abundantly clear in your post. Law soc were fined 250eur only a week ago, yet you went ahead with a more explicit event and poster. Obviously 250eur was not a big enough fine!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭dyl10


    Fine them to the ground.
    The student welfare fund is a much better cause.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    The way that the fine is been spoken about, you would think the fine went straight into Butler's pocket. It went to the welfare fund which is a deserving place. I'm glad they got some extra money. Posters on campus have been getting slowly out of hand, I guess this is a good way to stop it. The previous €250 fine obviously didn't get through. This whole "legal precedent" argument is a bit ridiculous.

    And just because only a few people actually got to see the poster, does not really make a difference. It is not as if any committee member had a road to Damascus conversion and thought "won't someone think of the first years", they were only taken down because they were ordered down.

    Too many quotes here in general to respond too, but I think it is fair to suggest that events targeted towards first years should be advertised with a bit more care. The most vulnerable people should not be the target of that kind of advertising. Fair enough plenty will be fine and but it might affect a minority struggling early in college life.

    I'm not being a stuck in the mud and I don't need to "loosen up". If anybody saw me in Coppers on Thursday they would know I am loose enough as it is! The whole thing just seems a bit tawdry and to suggest that something called the virgin ball with the slogan "loose your v plates" was not promoting sex is ridiculous. Just because a few posters get taken down does not mean we are going back to the 1950s.

    For the record, I'm not saying sex=evil (get laid if you want to get laid basically), I'm just saying sexually suggestive advertising targeted at 18 year olds just starting college is not on in my book. Remember there may be people out there struggling and feeling pressure about sex at that age, so that kind of poster could have an effect. Whether it was intended to make people feel insecure or not, it would have. There are plenty of other ways of advertising a night out. People can enjoy themselves at nights out without posters that could offend people or cause insecurity.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭The Agogo


    I agree that Arts Soc is in fact nothing but a vent for Dublin nights clubs to advertise their sales to UCD students.

    At Freshers' Week, I asked what the society will do during the year and the response was: "Oh, we'll organise loads of club events, parties...."

    So what? I have to pay €2 to get the crap annoyed out of me twice a week via text for an entire academic year, and maybe thensome?

    They don't deserve the massive fine of 5K, but at the same time they don't deserve to be a society. Going to their 'events' is no different than going to a nightclub at one's own accord.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Someone said the word sex on this forum.

    They should be fined E5000.

    After all, there might be students reading this thread.

    I don't see any reason why we should agree with the message promoted by B&L/Arts Soc but we should defend to the death their right to promote it.

    'Please teacher can I set up a society?'
    'Okay - but you have to behave. I am not entirely happy with you having this responsibility. I am going to monitor you and make sure you don't encourage any bad behaviour'
    'Sir, this a free country and we are ****ing adults. Now, with all due respect - mind your own ****ing business'


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    The Agogo wrote: »
    I agree that Arts Soc is in fact nothing but a vent for Dublin nights clubs to advertise their sales to UCD students.

    [...]

    Going to their 'events' is no different than going to a nightclub at one's own accord.

    That is so true.

    BTW does Q soc send any e-mails or has it just disappeared?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Law soc were fined 250eur only a week ago, yet you went ahead with a more explicit event and poster. Obviously 250eur was not a big enough fine!

    Increasingly explicit posters should be plastered across campus the more that societies are clamped down on. If the authorities continue to fine then obviously the posters were not explicit enough for them to get the message.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1 nibbler19


    I've been around the societyland for a few years and thought I could clear up a few of the misconceptions and factual inaccuracies that have popped up over the last few pages:

    1. The relationship between the college and societies: Societies exist as college bodies, they are in no way seperate organs that have any real independence from the university. UCD permits them to operate on its premises, funds their activities, provides them with office space and other facilities to run their activties, is often incredibly supportive of their work and events, and requires them to follow rules. If UCD decided tomorrow to close arts soc or B&L that would be that, it certainly wouldn't matter if people wanted to go to the events or not.

    2. Precedents, legal or otherwise: There are loads of precedents for fines being imposed on societies and individuals by the Recognition Committee. There is usually at least one or two imposed each year for postering offences alone, and others have, in my experience, been imposed for damage to college property, misuse of membership details, interference in SU elections and others. I understand from what I hear that this fine was as much to do the idea of a soc organising a "virgin ball" which encouraged participants to "lose your V(irgin) Plates" as with the posters for the event.

    3. It was the recognition committee who imposed the fine. This is a committee made up of equal amounts of staff and students. The student members included at this one: the former auditor of arts soc, former auditor of the L&H (they were both elected last year), a former chair of the societies' council as the current one is out of the country, the su president (who wasn't there). The staff were the VP for students, a member of the academic staff, the director of the Student Forum and the socities officer. The fine was agreed unanimously.

    4. The Recognition Committee is a sub-committee of both the societies' council and the academic council. Of course there is an avenue for appeal of the fine, firstly to the committee itself and then to academic council.

    5. I dont know the specifics of how the meeting went, but it strikes me that having sat on the committee myself in years past, the difference between those societies who severly punished and those who get off comparatively lightly is a bit like when people come before a judge in court: if you plead guilty, offer an apology and promise to be on our best behaviour from now on, you're more likely to get away with a slap on the wrist (I suspect that's what happened to LawSoc); if, on the other hand, you try the pretty disengenuous defence that this was nothing to do with sex, but was about the "first ball", maintain that nothing was wrong with the posters and the event, then you shouldn't complain if the committee dismisses the defence, it then throws the book at you. They wouldn't mitigate the punishment if you don't give them a reason to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9 choppy


    el sig person, 1. cudnt care about grammer on something like this, live with it. 2. you seem to be the most ignorant 'tosser' i hope i never have the misfortune of meeting! please never attend one of our events. 'lose your v plates' , suggestive or not, el siglo u may wanna think about that some more, the debate will rage on ;)

    how many of you guys are on larger society committee's who run weekly events or sit on the board?????? very few, bar the exceptional one or two, actually know what ur talking about and just seem to want to rant on about something!
    the lawsoc 'intercourse' was the same week as the v ball was meant to be. the v ball poster was no worse than this. sure u know if its going to a worthy cause why not fine us 10,000 euro or 12,000? like lets go nuts!!!!
    at the end of the day i stand by my points. as im sure u narrow minded feminista society haters will too so whats the point? gets us nowhere. and the best bit is im p****d off my t*ts right now so argue on! apology to u guys who aent being d**ks


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭dyl10


    Someone said the word sex on this forum.

    They should be fined E5000.

    After all, there might be students reading this thread.

    I don't see any reason why we should agree with the message promoted by B&L/Arts Soc but we should defend to the death their right to promote it.

    'Please teacher can I set up a society?'
    'Okay - but you have to behave. I am not entirely happy with you having this responsibility. I am going to monitor you and make sure you don't encourage any bad behaviour'
    'Sir, this a free country and we are ****ing adults. Now, with all due respect - mind your own ****ing business'

    Stupidest post yet! :D
    Outside of college we have "The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland" for a reason.
    I think you'll find it's not just a case of it being "a free country", being "****ing adults" and minding our "own ****ing business".

    You should read the thread and actually find out what is being debated, before you embarass yourself anymore:D:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    dyl10 wrote: »
    Stupidest post yet! :D
    Outside of college we have "The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland" for a reason.
    I think you'll find it's not just a case of it being "a free country", being "****ing adults" and minding our "own ****ing business".

    You should read the thread and actually find out what is being debated, before you embarass yourself anymore:D:rolleyes:

    There is a difference between the ASAI and the Stazi.

    A student society is not, as far as I know, a commercial enterprise (if ArtSoc itself reported a net profit in its last audit and distributed this profit to its 'staff', then I apologise.)

    The real debate lies in the extent to which UCD is considered public or private property (which, in reality, is a grey area).

    If UCD were entirely public property it would merely be subject to national law. However, this is clearly not the case, as the college authorities' mandate takes precedence over national law. If I am on Grafton Street Hugh Brady can't run up to me and tell me to leave Dublin, for instance, but he would be within his rights (subject to committee approval) to do so in UCD.

    Now why this is the case, and whether it should be the case, is another matter. UCD itself could not survive for a moment without public funding, and is an educational institution established and maintained by the Irish state. It is otherwise dependent upon students paying the college for revenue, and also upon various connections with commercial enterprises. This is not the same situation as you would find in a private company; where if employees wished to put up posters for a staff-society, upon the property of the company, that it would be up to the discretion of the company whether or not they wanted such posters to go up. Students aren't paid employees. UCD isn't a private company.

    Moreover, it would be difficult to countenance the idea that a company such as RyanAir, for instance, could reasonably step in and shut down a staff-society, or fine it for behaviour that it independently determines is inappropriate. Of course, it would also be hard to imagine RyanAir funding a staff society :rolleyes:

    But is UCD funding these societies? Is it merely dolling out tax-payers money which has already been designated for student enterprises? Indeed, does Art-Soc actually require this public funding - and is the fine more a case of withdrawing such funds?

    I am (happily) surprised that the Recognition Committee (which sounds remarkably like something out of 1984 :D) is half-composed of students, which in my eyes makes its judgments on student affairs far more legitimate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40 millar222


    I think one of the most ridiculous aspects of all of this is that neither of the societies were invited to answer the charges laid against them. That's no way to operate.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    millar222 wrote: »
    I think one of the most ridiculous aspects of all of this is that neither of the societies were invited to answer the charges laid against them. That's no way to operate.

    It says in the observer that "ArtsSoc auditor Niamh Kiely and B&L auditor Aoife McGuinness were asked to submit a joint defence of their societies’ actions, which was emailed to Butler in advance of the meeting. Neither Kiely nor McGuinness were permitted to attend the meeting, which took place last Thursday. The societies were informed of the penalty the following Tuesday, again via email from Butler."

    So they did get to answer the charges, they just were not at the meeting, which is fair enough really.


Advertisement