Political allegiance of SU

Nockz

PROGRAM_IX wrote: »

It's already been said at least once that apart from Derek, most SU officers don't visit or post here much. Even Derek tends to let the discussion go without comment; I don't think he particularly cares what people on Boards think of him. And my issue wouldn't be with Derek taking that particular Monday if he booked it in advance, more if he took it at very short notice and denied anyone else the same time off. Is that what happened?

Nope.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75289763&postcount=97

He very cleverly only puts 'random' in front of the Monday's DD doesn't like but then just says he took a Monday off. Nothing random about booking a day off. It just so happened to be a Monday. Le gasp.

Sid_Justice

PROGRAM_IX wrote: »

It's already been said at least once that apart from Derek, most SU officers don't visit or post here much. Even Derek tends to let the discussion go without comment; I don't think he particularly cares what people on Boards think of him. And my issue wouldn't be with Derek taking that particular Monday if he booked it in advance, more if he took it at very short notice and denied anyone else the same time off. Is that what happened?

you are wrong, DD and the other sabbats check this forum daily or get updates from cronies daily if there is anything of worth happening. Yes they irregularly post and yes they don't care what's being said but I can assure you they are aware such allegations exist.

I didn't take long for daly to refute his FF history influenced his role.

Nockz

I think their silence is testament to how silly you are being. They need not justify your proofless, unfounded and very silly accusations with a response and rightfully so.

PROGRAM_IX

It's not me making this claim, it's been clear over the last month. Only Kelly and Derek have made any posts here, and even they were few and far between. Saying they don't post much is reasonable on that evidence, surely? I never said they don't read/stay informed. Lurking is fine by me.

Derek could have known about this campaigning a bit in advance. It's not as though the FF lads are sitting around a pub and suddenly decide to canvass all of Dublin, or whatever. He could have booked the time off because it was a one-time thing, as opposed to a quoted 'random Monday'. Whether people had a problem with that is not really the point; the double standard isn't there if he gave enough notice and had a decent reason. Unless you can prove/quote that he forbade someone else from so doing.

On the other hand, if he took the time off all of a sudden (called in on the day to say he was taking a paid day off) then that's definitely a problem. The question is, did your source tell you that was how it happened?

Jester252

Sid_Justice wrote: »

No you're wrong. All I am saying is that DD has double standards, one for himself and one for his crew. You'd presume if this was untrue one of his crew or the man himself would be quick to put their record straight. Their silence is deafening. I suspect that everyone and their dogs know this is the case but only the 3 stooges above are taking it as a personal vendetta to harass me on this forum.

All I am accusing DD of doing is taking a paid holiday on a monday when he told his team they genereally speaking couldn't do the same. This is a mild charge, therefore it's even more startling no one has attempted to clear the waters.

PROVE IT SID

Sid_Justice

http://twitter.com/#!/ah_lads/status/128426855652012033

Jester252

Sid_Justice wrote: »

http://twitter.com/#!/ah_lads/status/128426855652012033

That not the prove to the question asked and you know it

Nockz

Sid_Justice wrote: »

http://twitter.com/#!/ah_lads/status/128426855652012033

You're sillier than I gave you credit for. Thank you for taking the time to carefully research the wrong question. The sooner you stop hiding behind your made-up source and stop dodging every single post that correctly calls you out, the better.

Sid_Justice

Slowly but surely the evidence will come to the fore. This thread started off as:

Sid: DD campaigned for FF when he's supposed to be working in SU
Chorus: Blasphemy, no he didn't
Sid: He did, he readily admits it on facebook
Chorus: Well he was probably off duty
Sid: Only because he took a paid day off
Chorus: No he didn't , he wasn't getting paid
Sid: Obviously he was, sure he took a day of annual leave
Chorus: But sure isn't everyone entitled to holidays?
Sid: Why weren't his other staff allowed holidays?
Chorus: Prove it!

So to remind everyone, this thread started off with people saying DD's FF affiliation didn't influence his SU activities. I have proven that is not the case . He took a day off from the SU to go working for FF in dublin.

Seeing as I had proven one thing, the distractors tried to catch me out saying he wasn't missing a work day.

I have proved he did take a monday off.

People said he wasn't getting paid.

we have accepted now he was getting paid as he was on annual leave.

Then people wouldn't accept that daly had forbidden his colleagues from annual leave.

Soon enough we will have proof he did.

watch this space, soon there will be no rock for DD supporters to hide under.

Justice has been served.

Jester252

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Slowly but surely the evidence will come to the fore. This thread started off as:

Sid: DD campaigned for FF when he's supposed to be working in SU
Chorus: Blasphemy, no he didn't
Sid: He did, he readily admits it on facebook
Chorus: Well he was probably off duty
Sid: Only because he took a paid day off
Chorus: No he didn't , he wasn't getting paid
Sid: Obviously he was, sure he took a day of annual leave
Chorus: But sure isn't everyone entitled to holidays?
Sid: Why weren't his other staff allowed holidays?
Chorus: Prove it!

So to remind everyone, this thread started off with people saying DD's FF affiliation didn't influence his SU activities. I have proven that is not the case . He took a day off from the SU to go working for FF in dublin.

Seeing as I had proven one thing, the distractors tried to catch me out saying he wasn't missing a work day.

I have proved he did take a monday off.

People said he wasn't getting paid.

we have accepted now he was getting paid as he was on annual leave.

Then people wouldn't accept that daly had forbidden his colleagues from annual leave.

Soon enough we will have proof he did.

watch this space, soon there will be no rock for DD supporters to hide under.

Justice has been served.

Sid uses dodge. It fails

reunion

Sid you have gone from Davis Derek is promoting FF within the su to not allowing a day off for other sabbats. The CO has taken a day off but I have no proof of this except the non-existant source you have too. What I say must be true I have a "source".
In reality I went in one day and I was told she was taking a sick day, I have no proof just my word on what I was told that day.

Can everyone just ignore his posts from now on? He has zero proof, proof soon enough means you are wasting everyone's time and breaking loads of the forum charter. Would a mod like to step in a enforce some of these rules? Can we ban sid for a week? (I've PM'ed some mods and reported a post)

There is no free speech!
-This is a privately owned website. Boards.ie is kindly hosting this forum for UL therefore you do not have the right to say whatever you want on here. You are expected to obey the rules just like anyone else. Not following the rules will get you banned. It is very simple. You are allowed to discuss anything as long as it doesn't break the following rules.

Flaming
- Bad mouthing or naming of Lecturers/Students is not allowed on this forum as boards.ie does not want to be a creator of a rumour mill.

Personal Abuse
- Posters who abuse others on here will be banned. Permanent bans will be handed out on a first offence if a moderator feels it is warranted. There is no argument on this one. Abuse someone and you will be banned. Calling someone an idiot is abuse. Don't attack the poster, attack the post. Posting PM's publicly without consent could be met with harsh consequences, especially if they do not have any place in the discussion.

Pointless Threads and Polls
- Posting any pointless thread or poll will result in the thread being locked. You can be banned for this. Think before you post. If you don't have anything to say then don't bother posting a new thread. Please try to comment as much as you can on any threads you create. If you create a thread in which you ask people to contribute in, contribute first.

Making the natives restless
- This is a catch-all rule for general trolling, bitching and similar. Certain posters have an ability to piss off large quanties of regulars on here. If a moderator feels that said poster is doing this intentionally or is the cause of the mess, then the poster can and will be banned. If this poster was being goaded by others, then they'll be the ones getting banned.

Common Sense Rule
- Be sensible.
The use of 'Technically, what I did is not disallowed by the charter' is not a valid defence against acting the idiot.
Idiots will be banned

freyners

Sid_Justice wrote: »

CairanMT, Jester252, freyners, nockz I have contacted my source and they do not wish to be named on this forum. If any of the SU officers refute my claim I will withdraw my 'accusation' if I cannot provide proof to the contrary. In the absence of such rebuttal, I see no reason people can't be exposed to this.

what a surprise..you have no proof at all so

also just because they are not running to refute your , so far, baseless claims isnt an indication of guilt. It more an indication that your arguments have so many holes in them and cannot be backed up, therefore, they dont need to

ULChieftain

reunion wrote: »

Sid you have gone from Davis Derek is promoting FF within the su to not allowing a day off for other sabbats. The CO has taken a day off but I have no proof of this except the non-existant source you have too. What I say must be true I have a "source".
In reality I went in one day and I was told she was taking a sick day, I have no proof just my word on what I was told that day.

Can everyone just ignore his posts from now on? He has zero proof, proof soon enough means you are wasting everyone's time and breaking loads of the forum charter. Would a mod like to step in a enforce some of these rules? Can we ban sid for a week? (I've PM'ed some mods and reported a post)

He doesn't have any proof and he should have some if he wants to stand on some solid ground.

Ah come on now, you can't single him out in this thread, there have been some stupid and pointless posts too. Posts in this thread (and forum) have deteriorated due to a few people not just one person.

Jester252 wrote: »

Sid uses dodge. It fails

Jester252

ULChieftain wrote: »

He doesn't have any proof and he should have some if he wants to stand on some solid ground.

Ah come on now, you can't single him out in this thread, there have been some stupid and pointless posts too. Posts in this thread (and forum) have deteriorated due to a few people not just one person.

I am try to get him to answer the question asked of him not to hide behind some long ass post

wnolan1992

reunion wrote: »

The CO has taken a day off but I have no proof of this except the non-existant source you have too. What I say must be true I have a "source".
In reality I went in one day and I was told she was taking a sick day, I have no proof just my word on what I was told that day.

I'll back up your source. (Assuming CO is Comms.) She had tonsilitus I believe. Was missing Thursday(?) because I heard her co-host on ULFM saying get well soon. She worked the Bank Holiday though, so I guess it balances.

And everyone just cop on! The last 40+ posts have just been an endless bloody cycle of:
"I have a source".
"Who is it?"
"A source."
"Who?"
"A reliable source."
"Who?"
*skips a page of posts*
"Who?"
"A source."
"Ah but who is it?"
*Loses what feels like ten years of my life*



And just to be fair to Sid(I hate being fair to Sid :pac: ) What source can he provide other than word of mouth? He is hardly likely to have documents to back these claims up.
But this "logic" that "Well, they haven't denied it so it must be true" is just plain idiotic.

Sid_Justice

i never said they didn't have days off for being sick/funerals etc. i was talking about taking a holiday day during the week for holidays.

Nockz

Sid_Justice wrote: »

i never said they didn't have days off for being sick/funerals etc. i was talking about taking a holiday day during the week for holidays.

People can't book off weekdays now? :pac:

Sid_Justice

i don't know can they? can you provide a source for that?

Nockz

Sid_Justice wrote: »

i don't know can they? can you provide a source for that?

Of course they can you silly boy!

Your argument is null and void.

Sid_Justice

where's your proof?

wnolan1992

Oh how the tables have turned Nockz! He's too quick for ya! :pac:

Ye actually now arguing whether the SU team have the right to take personal holidays? Grow up FFS.

CiaranMT

Is he still trolling? That's dedication.

sweetchild

Sid_Justice wrote: »

i never said they didn't have days off for being sick/funerals etc. i was talking about taking a holiday day during the week for holidays.

Sid Justice, your source is completely false and complete lies. This is Aoife Kenny, Education Officer and I never review boards, like most of the current sabat team, therefore there generally is silence to your little rants.

And Derek never refused holidays during term time because I had taken personal holidays on the Friday of Week 6 and the Monday of Week 7, so go back to your source.

And also what do my PERSONAL political views have anything to do with me doing my job as in representing students on an academic front to the best of my ability. mind your own b&qs!

mayo_lad

Sid_Justice wrote: »

where's your proof?

Sid this has gone past being a joke it is bordering on personal abuse to the entire sabbatical team, stop hiding behind thinly veined complaint's and tell us what the hell is your problem with the ULSU as an organisation.

because no one person can be so bored for a consecutive period of time as to do the amount of trolling as you have done over the last week.

your sincerely

mayo-lad

CiaranMT

sweetchild wrote: »

Sid Justice, your source is completely false and complete lies. This is Aoife Kenny, Education Officer and I never review boards, like most of the current sabat team, therefore there generally is silence to your little rants.

And Derek never refused holidays during term time because I had taken personal holidays on the Friday of Week 6 and the Monday of Week 7, so go back to your source.

And also what do my PERSONAL political views have anything to do with me doing my job as in representing students on an academic front to the best of my ability. mind your own b&qs!

/End thread.

horsemeat

I assumed this was Aoife Kenny's account on boards....??

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71236848&postcount=29



Obviously some verifiable proof that the above is actually aoife kenny.

I mean I can post right now and say ''Hi guys, im tara feelay and i can confirm that what sid has said is entirely true, DD did refuse me days off''



I think the point sid was making is that DD took his days at will with no notice given whereas other sabs have to run their days off through him first.

wnolan1992

horsemeat wrote: »

I assumed this was Aoife Kenny's account on boards....??

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71236848&postcount=29



Obviously some verifiable proof that the above is actually aoife kenny.

I mean I can post right now and say ''Hi guys, im tara feelay and i can confirm that what sid has said is entirely true, DD did refuse me days off''



I think the point sid was making is that DD took his days at will with no notice given whereas other sabs have to run their days off through him first.

Very possible that it's not Aoife, no way to verify if it is or isn't her, short of sitting behind her when she's on boards.

And it's possible that she just has a second account.

Any proof that DD took his holidays without notice? (excluding proof from a "source")

horsemeat

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Very possible that it's not Aoife, no way to verify if it is or isn't her, short of sitting behind her when she's on boards.

And it's possible that she just has a second account.

Any proof that DD took his holidays without notice? (excluding proof from a "source")

Thought multi counting was against the rules?

again, not sure what proof can be given.

it's well known he took the monday off to spend in dublin after already having spent the weekend campaigning up there.

a response from daly himself on the issue, who we know his account is verifiable, would clear things up as to what happened.

wnolan1992

horsemeat wrote: »

Thought multi counting was against the rules?

again, not sure what proof can be given.

it's well known he took the monday off to spend in dublin after already having spent the weekend campaigning up there.

a response from daly himself on the issue, who we know his account is verifiable, would clear things up as to what happened.

It is against the rules AFAIK, but with the number of accounts that mysteriously cropped up during October during the ULFM arguments it'd be foolish to say that people don't have multiple ones.

*Not saying Aoife was involved in those arguments, just saying people may have double accounts for various reasons (forgetting pw's etc, I don't know or care really.), especially since the MsBeeSmart account hasn't been used in months.*


Yes, it is well known he took the Monday off. Not well known that he gave no notice whatsoever, which is being thrown around on this thread with little or no evidence.

harrythehat

I presume Derek asked himself if he was allowed have the day off and gave himself permission.

Assuming Derek is at fault for something here, which I'm not sure of because I don't know the full details, if other members of the Exec have an issue with it I presume they would bring it up in their weekly meetings.

Why would it bother any students when Derek takes his days off, assuming he's not missing meetings and it's not interfering with the running of the union.