Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Doctors can advise you not to drink, but they can't force you to become a teetotaler. If you ask a doctor if alcohol has ill effects on health, they will say yes. That's not a reason to ban all alcohol.

Yes, all experts can do is advise you. So your point that "well, it's not really being told what to do" is a bit of a non sequitor.

Advice is advice is advice. Trying to dilute it on the basis that you don't think it amounts to be told what to do is a weak line of attack. All anyone asks for when they go to a Solicitor is advice/to be told what they should do...whatever way you want to phrase it.

kylith

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah here, now the solicitor is in on this conspiracy, too.

I'm getting out of this thread already. There is no point in shouting at the deaf.

If you ask a solicitor if jaywalking is illegal* they will say 'yes, it is', but that doesn't mean that anyone ever has or will be prosecuted for not using a pedestrian crossing.

* within 50m of a crossing

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Is she forcing to change to pro life stance? Is she stopping anyone from accessing the information by other means? Has she forcefully stopped the Repeal campaign on campus? Has prevented anyone from seeking an abortion?

Answer - No.

She’s not interfering with anyone’s views or choices. She is simply making sure the SU and the college stay within the bounds of the law.

She is interfering with things she said she wouldn't. She has shown herself to be dishonest and untrustworthy in refusing to defer as she said she would, and the SU and student body have obviously lost faith in her.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes Robert, I am saying you are being dishonest - you're even being dishonest in this post, because I never said she was lying about legal advise of €4,000. You just can't help yourself, can you?

You said you would believe it when you saw it after you had said she was an absolutely proven liar.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, all experts can do is advise you. So your point that "well, it's not really being told what to do" is a bit of a non sequitor.

Advice is advice is advice. Trying to dilute it on the basis that you don't think it amounts to be told what to do is a weak line of attack. All anyone asks for when they go to a Solicitor is advice/to be told what they should do...whatever way you want to phrase it.

Non sequitor? It was a direct response to RobertKK claiming that no matter who was SU president the result would have been the same as she was told what to do.

That is categorically untrue, and you appear to have either quickly forgotten the context of my post in response to RobertKK that you quoted or deliberately tried to skew it.

pitifulgod

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not about choice or repeal.
The book simply replaced illegal advice on obtaining an abortion with legal means on how to obtain an abortion.

She still hasn't divulged the legal advice, it being illegal has been disputed.

RobertKK

pitifulgod wrote: »

She still hasn't divulged the legal advice, it being illegal has been disputed.

She has.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You said you would believe it when you saw it after you had said she was an absolutely proven liar.

Which proves my exact point, I never said she was lying about the legal advise or €4,000 so why did you say "you are the person who was saying she was a liar over the €4,000 and legal advice. Look at yourself before you call someone dishonest"?

What was I being dishonest about?

tritium

kylith wrote: »

The issue is that it may not be possible for someone to contact the agencies to get the information; for example, if they have a very conservative family or if they are in an abuse relationship, and phone and internet use are monitored. Giving those people some information is better than nothing.

Theyre in a university! With wifi, computer access, phone access! That arguement is frankly ridiculous

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Which proves my exact point, I never said she was lying about the legal advise or €4,000 so why did you say "you are the person who was saying she was a liar over the €4,000 and legal advice. Look at yourself before you call someone dishonest"?

What was I being dishonest about?

You call someone absolutely dishonest and then went on and on about links to the €4,000 as only then would you believe it, which said you didn’t believe her. That implies she was being dishonest.
Yet here we are are you want to turn this into a personal slanging match.
Easier to have a go at me and call me dishonest that admit you believed she was being dishonest because that is what you had chosen to believe.

kylith

pitifulgod wrote: »

She still hasn't divulged the legal advice, it being illegal has been disputed.

http://www.universityobserver.ie/news/45040/
"Undoubtedly constitute a breach of the Act in one respect (1) and may well be at risk of being considered a breach of the Act in two other respects" (emphasis mine)

(1) being that the information could be considered unsolicited. "May well be at risk of being considered" is, I think, lawyer speak for 'it's a bit iffy'.

"Anyone who is actively involved...could be amenable to prosecution"
So she herself would not have been liable if she had excused herself from any part of it.

She got legal advice. Grand.
She told the SU what the advice was. Grand.
She ignored the wishes of the rest of the SU to carry on regardless when she had previously promised to stay out of abortion stuff. Not grand.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Non sequitor? It was a direct response to RobertKK claiming that no matter who was SU president the result would have been the same as she was told what to do.

That is categorically untrue, and you appear to have either quickly forgotten the context of my post in response to RobertKK that you quoted or deliberately tried to skew it.

Here you go, direct quotes to avoid any suggestion of skewing anything.

RobertKK wrote: »

She was told what to do with the legal advice.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Call it advice, call it being told what to do, whatever.

It was you who said something turned on that distinction, and there was a difference.

Billy86 wrote: »

She was not told what to do - she was advised. Being told would be receiving an order, getting advise is receiving a suggestion.

But that's nonsense. People go to Solicitors for advice, to be told what to do...nothing turns on the words used to describe the process.

People use the phrase "I was told what to do by my Solicitor/ Doctor/ Mechanic/ Plumber" every day and no one says "you are wrong, for only Court Orders can tell people what to do...you were given advice". It's not a strong line of attack of whatever it is that people want to call the letter from the Solicitor.

Grayson

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why do people seem to feel the need to invent such long-winded, hypothetical and irrelevant analogies, when the facts of this case are already sufficiently straightforward?

To equate this legislation to Apartheid is sensationally overwrought. Such an over-the-top parallell undermines your own argument. It looks as though you've run out of road with any relevant arguments, and are now appealing to imaginary anaologies that suit your narrative.

It's quite simple. The SU President took a decision to comply with the law in a democratic society, even at a financial cost to the Union. That was possibly a slightly zealous approach, but it doesn't justify this contrived outrage and keyboard hysteria.

It might not be like apartheid but it is a matter of life and death for these women.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/patient-died-flying-home-after-abortion-rotunda-master-says-1.3252250

Speaking to the committee earlier on Wednesday, Dr Abigail Aiken, assistant Professor from the LBJ school of public affairs, University of Texas, said there was evidence women in Ireland were using coat hangers and drinking bleach in order to force miscarriages, due to the lack of access to abortion service
Research and interviews she conducted with women who had used the Women on Web website service to order abortion pills online outlined several ways Irish women attempted to induce miscarriages.
“These include coat hangers, starvation, high doses of vitamin C, strenuous exercise, large quantities of alcohol, scalding water, drinking bleach, throwing themselves downstairs” she said.

That's the status quo and that's what Katie wants to keep. The rest of the SU want to provide information to students so they don't have to use scalding water. And they want the union to have a pro choice stance and campaign to make sure that safe and accessible abortion services are available in Ireland.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't it a bit odd Robert, that in her no doubt sincere and honest zeal to do her very best to protect the student union from legal costs and possible legal repercussions that Katie Ascough AKA Katie Martin acted in a way which is 100% in line with her own personal ideology and 100% at odds with the stated position of the SU (which was established with a vote by the student body).

She said her personal beliefs on abortion would not affect her actions as leader of the SU; instead she almost immediately reneged on her election promises and chose instead to act on her personal beliefs.

This is a little crusade by an Iona-offshoot, it's nothing to do with the welfare of the UCD student body.

In a sense, she chose the Nuclear Option for maximum publicity and so she could play the martyr. It's a role that comes all-too easily to that type of person.

If she was acting in line with personal ideology I'd expect her to take the opportunity to fully remove the content and offer nothing in its place. She didn't, she provided access to the same information in a legally defensible way.

Or to put it another way, a pro life SU president made abortion information available in a way that could not be censored or removed subsequently on the basis of any legal concern.

How is that pushing her agenda or going against the SU mandate again?

SafeSurfer

Could someone explain to me the impeachment process?

Is the referendum to initiate the impeachment process?

If the referendum is carried will there be a quasi legal process with prosecution and defence? Or will the current president be removed automatically if the referendum is carried?

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

It might not be like apartheid but it is a matter of life and death for these women.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/patient-died-flying-home-after-abortion-rotunda-master-says-1.3252250

I guess the other side would be...it's always a matter of death for the foetus.

But either way, that's to get into the abortion debate itself. As opposed to whether the SU President should be impeached for her actions.

astrofool

tritium wrote: »

If she was acting in line with personal ideology I'd expect her to take the opportunity to fully remove the content and offer nothing in its place. She didn't, she provided access to the same information in a legally defensible way.

Or to put it another way, a pro life SU president made abortion information available in a way that could not be censored or removed subsequently on the basis of any legal concern.

How is that pushing her agenda or going against the SU mandate again?

I dislike numbers, other people like numbers, I promise not to involve myself in numbers and run to be head of an organisation. We publish numbers information, and have done for years. As soon as I become head, I ask for legal advice on the numbers and modify the numbers, even though I promised not to involve myself in numbers.

That is me pushing my numbers agenda, the fact that I made it more or less illegal, or made the numbers super fantastic numbers doesn't matter, I said I wouldn't get involved, then I did, now my job is on the line.

RobertKK

astrofool wrote: »

I dislike numbers, other people like numbers, I promise not to involve myself in numbers and run to be head of an organisation. We publish numbers information, and have done for years. As soon as I become head, I ask for legal advice on the numbers and modify the numbers, even though I promised not to involve myself in numbers.

That is me pushing my numbers agenda, the fact that I made it more or less illegal, or made the numbers super fantastic numbers doesn't matter, I said I wouldn't get involved, then I did, now my job is on the line.

She is not going to get involved in the number 8 though...not other numbers which have nothing to do with it.

sunshine and showers

Look, there is a difference between:

A) "Someone pointed out that information in the handbooks is illegal, so I sought legal advice, here is the legal advice, let's sit down as the SU board to discuss it. I made a commitment to defer on issues involving abortion and I don't want people to think this is because of my personal beliefs, I genuinely think this is just a legal issue, so let's make a joint decision. I know you want to proceed anyway, but the advice warns I could be in trouble too as head of the SU even if I don't hand out the books myself and I don't want to risk any potential legal trouble, so I think we should not do this."

and

"Someone pointed out that information in the handbooks is illegal, so I sought legal advice. No you can't see it, it just says we can't do this because it's illegal. I am in charge and making this executive decision without your input. The end."

Had she done the former, there would be no issue now. She did the latter.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Ok, say it was in apartheid South Africa - it's the law that black people are not allowed on campus except as staff. The Student Union adopts a pro-equality stance and welcomes all ethnicities

The new SU president is elected on a platform which includes a respect for the existing stance of the union. Immediatly after they are elected, they singlehandedly change the rules so that black students are not welcome. They cite a concern for the rule of law as their justification, it's just a massive conicindence they are a member of a strongly pro-segregationist family.

All good?

Thats a pretty big, and wholly dishonest, leap to equivalence.

Btw we are all aware arent we that, at least as reported by the IT, this wasnt just the pres going rogue on a solo run? That the board of directors view was sought and acted upon based on the legal advice received?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You call someone absolutely dishonest and then went on and on about links to the €4,000 as only then would you believe it, which said you didn’t believe her. That implies she was being dishonest.
Yet here we are are you want to turn this into a personal slanging match.
Easier to have a go at me and call me dishonest that admit you believed she was being dishonest because that is what you had chosen to believe.

You're twisting yourself into embarrassing knots here after having called me dishonest with no basis that you're able to back up.

I said she has a history of being dishonest which is irrefutably true (is it Katie Ascough or Katie Martin we're on about by the way?), and so I would want to see her proof rather than take the word of a clearly dishonest person on face value. As I mentioned before, I would have thought learned your lesson about blindly believing point blank believing proven liars with no proof provided. But instead you're going around calling people looking for the proof dishonest.

astrofool

RobertKK wrote: »

She is not going to get involved in the number 8 though...not other numbers which have nothing to do with it.

Doesn't matter, I said I wasn't getting involved in numbers 0 through 9, the fact that one number is contentious at the moment, doesn't mean that me improving the others (in my mind) is OK, when I said I won't get involved at all.

Look, everyone has a right to their views on whatever issue, not everyone has to agree with them, and I would fight any attempt to ban speech, even if I disagree with what they're saying.

But when you go for a job representing people and say you'll do X, then do Y, then you can't be surprised when you lose that job. It doesn't matter if the advice is legal, from God, the man in the moon, the fact you did Y is the issue, not what your beliefs are.

tritium

pilly wrote: »

She did have a choice, that's just untrue.

1. She could have chosen not to seek legal advice
2. In obtaining that legal advice and sharing it with the board who disagreed with her she could have left the decision to them which is what she agreed to do when she got the position.

To be clear, the board apparently agreed with her position. The su elected body is not the board here, they're in effect employees of a limited liability company with its own board of directors.

groovyg

The legal letter is dated September 1st why didn't she release this info during freshers weeks when it all this kicked off about her ordering a reprint of the SU books.
She is now canvassing against being impeached and uploaded a copy of the letter on the facebook page (⋕Fight4Katie - No to Impeachment of UCDSU President) she has set up. Its a bit odd, she could have saved herself alot of aggro if she had released a copy of the letter weeks ago no?

pilly

groovyg wrote: »

The legal letter is dated September 1st why didn't she release this info during freshers weeks when it all this kicked off about her ordering a reprint of the SU books.
She is now canvassing against being impeached and uploaded a copy of the letter on the facebook page (⋕Fight4Katie - No to Impeachment of UCDSU President) she has set up. Its a bit odd, she could have saved herself alot of aggro if she had released a copy of the letter weeks ago no?

One could be forgiven for thinking it's a cynical ploy for publicity.

sunshine and showers

Minutes of executive meeting following this don't look very good for poor, "bullied" Katie.

http://collegetribune.ie/she-has-betrayed-the-electorate-ucdsu-executive-minutes-finally-released/

Katie then requested negotiations around the UCD for choice stand and recruiting of pro-choice class reps.

Why would you need to negotiate on this if you weren't going to get involved and you only removed information because it was illegal?

B0jangles

tritium wrote: »

Thats a pretty big, and wholly dishonest, leap to equivalence.

Btw we are all aware arent we that, at least as reported by the IT, this wasnt just the pres going rogue on a solo run? That the board of directors view was sought and acted upon based on the legal advice received?

How dishonest? I'm making an analogy between the rights that black south africans were deprived of under apartheid with the rights Irish women are deprived of under the 8th amendment.

Sometimes the law is wrong and must be changed. The law said black south africans were inferior to whites. It was wrong. It was changed.

Our law says that a grown woman is exactly equal to a foetus at any stage of development, that she must be at risk of death before action can be taken which might endanger the well-being of that foetus. I, and many others, (including a majority of the student body of UCD) believe the law is wrong and should be changed.

How else do unjust laws get changed, except by people taking action to challenge them?

Katie Ascough/Martin put her own personal views ahead of those of the Union she was elected to lead, and ahead of the views of a majority of the student body she is supposed to represent. She got elected by misleading the electorate about how she would behave once elected.

pilly

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Minutes of executive meeting following this don't look very good for poor, "bullied" Katie.

http://collegetribune.ie/she-has-betrayed-the-electorate-ucdsu-executive-minutes-finally-released/



Why would you need to negotiate on this if you weren't going to get involved and you only removed information because it was illegal?

Very badly written article tbh, doesn't make very much sense.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Here you go, direct quotes to avoid any suggestion of skewing anything.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Call it advice, call it being told what to do, whatever.

It was you who said something turned on that distinction, and there was a difference.

Direct quotes is it? Sure, here we are... let's look at both posts in full, as which you conveniently left chunks out of each of them:

RobertKK wrote: »

She was told what to do with the legal advice. She asked if the book could be printed online to save costs and she was told no.

You are arguing breaking the law is fine.
It doesn’t matter who the SU president was the result would be the same, making the whole thing a storm in a teacup.

Billy86 wrote: »

She was not told what to do - she was advised. Being told would be receiving an order, getting advise is receiving a suggestion. The rest of those she had said she would defer to on the matter disagreed and yet she did the complete opposite of deferring to them by overruling their wishes.

You are arguing that breaking campaign promises is fine, which to be honest is not that surprising.

Your claim that it would have been the same under and president is incredibly dishonest by the way, UCDSU have broken laws numerous times on similar issues such as condom machines on campus, and if others are correct then also on publishing this information previously. There is information on how to get in touch with abortion services still on the UCD website. Had any of the other board members who unanimously were opposed to her decision been president, they would not have done so.

This was not personal advice she was seeking, it was advice on behalf of the SU - all well and good to do, but having a mandate to defer to them on these matters it was one she was not to act on herself against their will, yet that's exactly what she did. She was not 'told' to do anything that was beyond her control, hence the nonsense that was Robert's claim "it doesn’t matter who the SU president was the result would be the same"

But that's nonsense. People go to Solicitors for advice, to be told what to do...nothing turns on the words used to describe the process.

People use the phrase "I was told what to do by my Solicitor/ Doctor/ Mechanic/ Plumber" every day and no one says "you are wrong, for only Court Orders can tell people what to do...you were given advice". It's not a strong line of attack of whatever it is that people want to call the letter from the Solicitor.

I'll bring you back to my earlier comment that you ignored - what would the reaction be if an anti-alcohol Muslim person became Taoiseach and ran on the basis of deferring issues such as alcohol laws to other members of government, only to ban it outright when in office because it can cause health issues that add to health care costs?

There is nothing wrong with her raising this issue with the SU but she was not seeking or acting on personal advise, instead it was that of the SU who had voted for a pro-choice agenda and who she had said she would defer to on these matters, which she had a mandate to do - and she broke it. Once they opposed her wanting to take it out, she should have either accepted to do so as she was mandated to, or resigned if she could not bring herself to do so.

sunshine and showers

pilly wrote: »

Very badly written article tbh, doesn't make very much sense.

Here's another:

http://www.universityobserver.ie/news/minutes-from-executive-meeting-show-lack-of-confidence-within-the-students-union-in-president-katie-ascough/

Billy86

tritium wrote: »

If she was acting in line with personal ideology I'd expect her to take the opportunity to fully remove the content and offer nothing in its place. She didn't, she provided access to the same information in a legally defensible way.

Or to put it another way, a pro life SU president made abortion information available in a way that could not be censored or removed subsequently on the basis of any legal concern.

How is that pushing her agenda or going against the SU mandate again?

Because she said she would defer such matters to the other SU board members, they told her they wanted it to remain there, and she overruled them which is the opposite of deferring.

tritium

pilly wrote: »

One could be forgiven for thinking it's a cynical ploy for publicity.

One could be forgiven for thinking its not the only cynical ploy at play here....

tritium

Billy86 wrote: »

Because she said she would defer such matters to the other SU board members, they told her they wanted it to remain there, and she overruled them which is the opposite of deferring.

Can you stop referring to them as board members? Theyre not board members, there is a separate board of directors, who apparently were consulted. The su officers are basically a group of students who are nominated and elected to be employed in a role for a term of office.

.......

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

Katie then requested negotiation around the UCD for choice stand and recruiting of pro-choice class reps

Says it all really for anyone still trying to dispute her election promise hasn't been broken.

Grayson

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Here's another:

http://www.universityobserver.ie/news/minutes-from-executive-meeting-show-lack-of-confidence-within-the-students-union-in-president-katie-ascough/

Better than the first link but still badly written. I've seen youtube comments that are more coherent

Billy86

tritium wrote: »

Can you stop referring to them as board members? Theyre not board members, there is a separate board of directors, who apparently were consulted. The su officers are basically a group of students who are nominated and elected to be employed in a role for a term of office.

Fair enough I had the terminology on them mixed up, but at least you got your reason as to how she didn't fulfill her SU mandate.

astrofool

B0jangles wrote: »

How dishonest? I'm making an analogy between the rights that black south africans were deprived of under apartheid with the rights Irish women are deprived of under the 8th amendment.

Sometimes the law is wrong and must be changed. The law said black south africans were inferior to whites. It was wrong. It was changed.

Our law says that a grown woman is exactly equal to a foetus at any stage of development, that she must be at risk of death before action can be taken which might endanger the well-being of that foetus. I, and many others, (including a majority of the student body of UCD) believe the law is wrong and should be changed.

How else do unjust laws get changed, except by people taking action to challenge them?

Katie Ascough/Martin put her own personal views ahead of those of the Union she was elected to lead, and ahead of the views of a majority of the student body she is supposed to represent. She got elected by misleading the electorate about how she would behave once elected.

To be fair, changing the law is not what this is about, and the fact that this happened to come up just as she was elected, could just be a coincidence and maybe another president would have had to make a decision on it. The law is perfectly just in the minds of some people, and that has to be respected, the fact that it might be seen as unjust in historical terms cannot be judged now either, any referendum may not pass anyway.

All that matters in this case was her promising not to involve herself in any pro-life/choice matters, and then she made a decision to modify the main page in the guide about accessing information on the issue.

Grayson

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Why would you need to negotiate on this if you weren't going to get involved and you only removed information because it was illegal?

After reading both articles I have no idea what was going on with that. Negotiating a pro choice stand? And allowing pro choice reps to be elected? WTF are they on about?

pilly

Grayson wrote: »

After reading both articles I have no idea what was going on with that. Negotiating a pro choice stand? And allowing pro choice reps to be elected? WTF are they on about?

And presumably these articles were written by students? Hopefully not journalism students. :eek:

Captain Obvious

Jayop wrote: »

1) That I said it was fine to do something illegal if it wasn't prosecuted before.

2) She is currently being impeached for this so it's fair to assume it's within the articles of impeachment.

3) LOL if you think calling someone pro life is defaming them then that says something about your views on pro lifers.

1) I said it was reasonable to infer your opinion by your continuously bringing it up without making a point. Am i wrong in what your reason was for bringing it up.

2) No it isn't. The impeachment could be completely out of order.

3) Back to deflect.

VinLieger wrote: »

It was a promise she made when campaigning, people voted for her under the impression she would keep to that.

That's not a valid reason to impeach anyone though. People go into politics with the best of intentions but they cannot always follow through with what they hope to do or achieve. That's why campaign promises aren't legally binding.

scopper

Heh, I think we all know ya'll just want to impeach her for being pro-life.

Captain Obvious

VinLieger wrote: »

Says it all really for anyone still trying to dispute her election promise hasn't been broken.

Is the question not whether breaking an election promise is an impeachable act?

Billy86

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Is the question not whether breaking an election promise is an impeachable act?

It probably depends on the university's own rules on it, but as the second petition to impeach her has been accepted it would probably have to be. I'm not sure if the first one failed due to a lack of signatures (that was enlarged for the second one) or a lack of justifiable reason to do so (which was amended on the second one), or possibly even something else, but it could explain why they needed to re-do it.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

I'll bring you back to my earlier comment that you ignored - what would the reaction be if an anti-alcohol Muslim person became Taoiseach and ran on the basis of deferring issues such as alcohol laws to other members of government, only to ban it outright when in office because it can cause health issues that add to health care costs?

The point I made had to do with you picking up on some perceived difference between legal advice and a Solicitor telling someone what to do.

Nothing turns on it. It's a figure of speech.

Not sure what Muslims and alcohol have to do with the difference between "I was advised by my Solicitor" and "I was told by my Solicitor". However, to your analogy is flawed. To make it more like the situation, if the Government tried to put an ad for alcopops in a circular for kids, and a Muslim sought legal advice and was told/advised that it was illegal to distribute alcohol advertisements to kids, then they would be perfectly correct to pull the ad.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

How dishonest? I'm making an analogy between the rights that black south africans were deprived of under apartheid with the rights Irish women are deprived of under the 8th amendment.

Re. the Apartheid line.

Abortion is often referred to as a modern "Holocaust" by pro life campaigners.

I can't say which really bad comparison is more or less valid. I think they're both pretty useless.

steddyeddy

Right... I don't agree with what she's done or her position, but UCD's SU have had far worse individuals involved in the past. I'd go as far as saying criminal behaviour. Don't worry mods, there won't be names.

groovyg

On the fb page somebody asked her why she left the information in about how to remove a car clamp considering its illegal to remove car clamps.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

The point I made had to do with you picking up on some perceived difference between legal advice and a Solicitor telling someone what to do.

Nothing turns on it. It's a figure of speech.

Which I would generally agree with except for the fact Robert then went on to say no matter who was SU president the exact same thing would have happened, basically implying she had (excuse the irony!) no choice in the matter, which is not true.

Not sure what Muslims and alcohol have to do with the difference between "I was advised by my Solicitor" and "I was told by my Solicitor". However, to your analogy is flawed. To make it more like the situation, if the Government tried to put an ad for alcopops in a circular for kids, and a Muslim sought legal advice and was told/advised that it was illegal to distribute alcohol advertisements to kids, then they would be perfectly correct to pull the ad.

- Here we have a SU president who people would have probably had reservations about due to her pro-life stance which was based on her religion.
- There we would have an Irish Taoiseach who people would probably have reservations about due to if he had an anti-alcohol stance based on his religion.

- Here we have that president allaying these concerns by promising to defer abortion issues to their peers.
- There we would have that Taoiseach allaying these concerns by promising to defer alcohol issues to their peers.

- Here we have a president that then completely went back on that mandate by not only failing to defer to her peers on the abortion issue, but actively overruling them on it.
- There we would have a Taoiseach that then completely went back on that mandate by not only failing to defer to her peers on the alcohol issue, but actively overruling them on it.

- Here we have a president claiming it was done on legal advise to avoid wasting money, when it would up costing more money to do so.
- There we would have a Taoiseach claiming it was done on legal advise to avoid wasting money, when it would up costing more money to do so.

- Here was have a president who broke their mandate on a very flimsy excuse when they should have stuck to their word or resigned.
- There we would have a president who broke their mandate on a very flimsy excuse when they should have stuck to their word or resigned.

If you think this is justifiable grounds for her breaking her mandate and going against the wishes of the majority of students because you reckon legal advise has to be followed, then you would also have to think the same of the Muslim Taoiseach banning alcohol because medical advise has to be followed. Either that or we're in agreement that she didn't have to take this legal advise and apply it to all against their will (just as the Muslim president wouldn't have to take the medical advise and apply it to all against their will) and as such in complete breach of her mandate. I'd fully support removing that Muslim Taoiseach from office if he did such a thing also.

The reason I brought up the analogy with regards to medical advise is literally because you decided to equate legal advise with medical advice:

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you argue that it is sensible to ignore medical advice because, well, it's only advice and sure doctors can't tell you what to do?

Grayson

groovyg wrote: »

On the fb page somebody asked her why she left the information in about how to remove a car clamp considering its illegal to remove car clamps.

Thing is, did she ask for legal advice on it?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

You're twisting yourself into embarrassing knots here after having called me dishonest with no basis that you're able to back up.

I said she has a history of being dishonest which is irrefutably true (is it Katie Ascough or Katie Martin we're on about by the way?), and so I would want to see her proof rather than take the word of a clearly dishonest person on face value. As I mentioned before, I would have thought learned your lesson about blindly believing point blank believing proven liars with no proof provided. But instead you're going around calling people looking for the proof dishonest.

You also said I was dishonest without any basis.

Billy86 wrote: »

Can I get those links to show the fines you mentioned and UCD SU being up for €4,000 per person for publishing this in years past now please?

Proven to be true, not dishonest.

Billy86 wrote: »

Fourth time now Robert... do you have a link to those €4,000 per person fines you were on about and UCDSU being fined before for them given they were publishing this prior?

The above was after a link had already been posted which said €4,000. But it didn't suit your argument, after all you had said:

Billy86 wrote: »

Again, taking the word of proven liar Katie Martin Ascough on the matter at face value without asking any questions. Not like those she and her family associate with have form for that or anything. How come these have never been incurred on UCDSU before can you tell us?

Today it was shown she was not the liar you called her, yet you keep on with this policy of calling people you really dislike as being dishonest which includes myself.
I have not told lies on this thread, I just gave my honest opinion.

You made it clear in the last quote your problem has more to do with her personal prolife opinion and that of her family as you chose to bring them into this as well.
Can we agree that her being prolife is a problem for you, and you would rather she was replaced with a prochoice SU president at UCD?