UCL Union bans military recruitment

[Animus]

For the first time ever I am ashamed to say that I am a member of University College London. The union has just illegitimately passed a motion at the AGM to ban OTC, URNU and ULAS from having presence at fresher fairs.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...iversity+in+fresh+snub+to+military/article.do

Patrick Mercer, a former infantry commander and a Tory MP, said today:

"These students are deeply misguided. They are insulting the men and women who fight for their freedom and the democratic rights of our society."

A spokesman for UCL Union accused a group of "hard core", Left-wing students of orchestrating the vote. "It's quite a silly thing,” he admitted.


We're currently organising an emergency AGM to put this ridiculous motion to bed, until then I apologise on behalf of UCL students, we aren't all cnuts.

 

[Airfix]

For the first time ever I am ashamed to say that I am a member of University College London. The union has just illegitimately passed a motion at the AGM to ban OTC, URNU and ULAS from having presence at fresher fairs.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...iversity+in+fresh+snub+to+military/article.do

Patrick Mercer, a former infantry commander and a Tory MP, said today:

"These students are deeply misguided. They are insulting the men and women who fight for their freedom and the democratic rights of our society."

A spokesman for UCL Union accused a group of "hard core", Left-wing students of orchestrating the vote. "It's quite a silly thing,” he admitted.


We're currently organising an emergency AGM to put this ridiculous motion to bed, until then I apologise on behalf of UCL students, we aren't all cnuts.

Can you check if Alumni are members with voting rights, I fancy a trip back to that godless place in Gower Street to exercise my right to vote (if I have it) or just exercise my left and right fists in some cnuts face over this!

 

[Whiskybreath]

It's a student's right to be a pillock. Thank God most of them learn quickly.

 

[Animus]

Airfix, I've checked and I'm pretty sure its only members of the union who can vote.

Incidentally I got into an altercation with the numpty who proposed the motion on an unrelated matter at the start of the year, trouble was that he knew if I exercised my fists I would have been thrown out of the union, would have been worth the trouble in hindsight.

 

[Archimedes]

Just a thought, Animus, and forgive me if you've considered this already, but if not, it is worth checking various bits and pieces of the Union rules. The political animal that is the student activist often fails to check such things and ends up looking silly as a result...

For instance, having a look at the online version of the UCLU constitution, Article 2 A5 says that one of the objects of the Union is "to foster and encourage the freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association amongst students of the Union...." which might, at first sight, be taken to mean that barring like minded students (for instance OTC members) who wish to assemble and associate in the Union is contrary to the rules.

Second, see if the trust deeds prevent the Union from banning people willy-nilly without a referendum or a vote requiring a 2/3 majority.

Third, see if the University's allocation of buildings to the Union is dependent upon the Union following certain general rules about who it can and cannot exclude from using the buildings. About 18 years ago, the Oxford University Student Union (not to be confused with the Oxford Union proudly banned the OTC from freshers' only to get a stiff note from the University authorities asking them when they intended to hold the event, given that the OUSU was in breach of article something-or-other given their decision to exclude the OTC from the Exam Schools (where Freshers' Fair is held), which obliged the University to withdraw the offer of the use of the Exam Schools...

Fourth, see if the University harassment code has been breached in any way. These are usually written in such a woolly fashion that a half-decent law student (or a tutor) can find some way of suggesting that a case would appear to exist under the definition of harassment (possibly on the grounds of political beliefs).

 

[dan_man]

Saw this on the news, this wouldn't dare happen at my university. Why not get OTC, URNU and UAS down to the EGM in full nasty military people dress to scare the drozzers. I remember in America this nearly happened in California somewhere to stop military recruiters on campus grounds and the government objected and proposed that their funding would therefore withdrawn!

Seems the person who proposed it is in the UCL Stop the War Society, How pleasant!

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=557&Itemid=115

 

[DarkBlueLoggie]

Many years ago when I was at Hull Uni a rumour went around that SWSS (Socialist Workers Student Society) were going to propose a motion supporting the IRA (this was at the height of the Troubles). Hundreds, and I mean hundreds, of students turned out to make sure this didn't happen. It was a big hall, and the place was packed to overflowing with people in the corridors and outside. Students can mobilise for the right reasons.

 

[Bravo_Foxtrot]

It was an absolute disgrace, the people who were for this ban were a bunch of proto-terrorist thugs anyway. You just had to see the way they treated the Jewish Society when they proposed a motion - booing, heckling, jeering and intimidation.

The two arrses who proposed the motion are a pair of trot wnakers who are trying to make a name for themselves politically. It was student politics at its worst.

 

[Animus]

Archimedes, thanks for doing the research and giving advice. I think the point regarding the unions constitutional objective "to foster and encourage the freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association amongst students of the Union...." could well be used to get the University authorities to make the union reconsider. We're having a meeting on Monday in an effort to sort this affair out.

Dan Man, yes the delightful character who proposed the motion is also involved with a campaign to persuade UCL to ditch it's shares in an defense company, goes around spraying 'stop the war' graffiti everywhere and has a large 'stop the war' poster fastened to the front of the union. I'd love to give him a good hiding!

 

[Archimedes]

Animus, no problem. I rather think that your 'urban artist's' handiwork is in contravention of several UCL and University of London statutes and he could be in serious danger of removal from his degree course if he is found to have been causing criminal damage...

B-F, although I'm not completely familiar with UCL regs, the behaviour towards the Jewish Society you describe is a prima facie breach of the harassment regulations and ought to be reported. What's that quote about all it requires for evil (and leftie student hacks) to triumph is for good men to do nothing?

 

[mushroom]

Jack Straw did this at Leeds in the '60s, and got the photo of the Queen taken out of the refectory.

And he became a key member of the least competent government since Lord North told the American colonies to pull their socks up.

 

[Airfix]

Archimedes, thanks for doing the research and giving advice. I think the point regarding the unions constitutional objective "to foster and encourage the freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association amongst students of the Union...." could well be used to get the University authorities to make the union reconsider. We're having a meeting on Monday in an effort to sort this affair out.

Dan Man, yes the delightful character who proposed the motion is also involved with a campaign to persuade UCL to ditch it's shares in an defense company, goes around spraying 'stop the war' graffiti everywhere and has a large 'stop the war' poster fastened to the front of the union. I'd love to give him a good hiding!

As I recall, freshers stands were in the long corridor and outside the main building, i.e. on College not Union property. I also remember the University of London Union having big no no policy on descrimination based on race colour creed, sexual orientation etc so a look at their charter may help - UOTC etc are Univeristy, not College entity.

 

[Airfix]

Just checked the Union's Constitution:

III. Statement of Equal Opportunities

A. UCL Union embraces a diverse society, welcomes all people and values their differences.


B.
UCL Union recognises that discrimination occurs at all levels in our society. UCL Union is an equal opportunities organisation. No person that comes into contact with the Union should receive less favourable treatment, be disadvantaged or disadvantage others on the grounds of their ethnic group, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation or identity, age, disability, marital status, family commitments, political or religious beliefs, spent or irrelevant criminal convictions, trade union activity, or HIV status.

UCL Union regards such discrimination as unacceptable and promotes equal opportunities both as an employer and a provider of services.

I would say the motion is in breach of this paragraph!

 

[Juvenal]

I don't see 'occupation' on the list of things banned as grounds for discrimination, so unfortunately the ground might be shaky there.

Not that it matters. If the motion was illegitimate, then that's presumably all you need to get it struck off?

Edit: And if the little buggers basolutely refuse to budge then it's very simple - set up the stands 1 foot from the Union's boundary where, presumably, they have absolutely no authority at all.

 

[Airfix]

I don't see 'occupation' on the list of things banned as grounds for discrimination, so unfortunately the ground might be shaky there.

Not that it matters. If the motion was illegitimate, then that's presumably all you need to get it struck off?

'politics and religion' old boy! My politics are that I wish to serve my country by being in HM Forces etc etc, the angle's there, but it needs expanding on.

 

[Juvenal]

True and they might even swallow that, but my counter in their place would be that the Forces aren't permitted to 'do' politics in the partisan sense (which, lets face it is what most of them will be thinking of), hence cannot be political and do not come under the clause. Another point is that (1) you can exercise those beliefs at an AFCO and (2) you are merely guaranteed protection from discrimination against said beliefs, not the right to exercise them on union turf.

A possible way to close that line down before it even starts is to argue that the protection afforded by the Forces is crucial to any form of political freedom in this country. Their deployment, funding and equipping is a matter of politics. Hence the Forces are by their nature political even if the members take no active part in domestic politics and thus are protected.

But it's 2 in the morning and it's quite possible the above two paragraphs are total male cow excrement. In which case, I still say the procedural point is your best approach and refer you to my post above in case they won't see reason.

 

[Airfix]

True and they might even swallow that, but my counter in their place would be that the Forces aren't permitted to 'do' politics in the partisan sense (which, lets face it is what most of them will be thinking of), hence cannot be political and do not come under the clause. Another point is that (1) you can exercise those beliefs at an AFCO and (2) you are merely guaranteed protection from discrimination against said beliefs, not the right to exercise them on union turf.

A possible way to close that line down before it even starts is to argue that the protection afforded by the Forces is crucial to any form of political freedom in this country. Their deployment, funding and equipping is a matter of politics. Hence the Forces are by their nature political even if the members take no active part in domestic politics and thus are protected.

Good counter, my repost would be that HM Forces don't do politics but are controlled by democratically elected politicians etc. I could argue that it's a sex thing and we all just get the horn from being 'commando' in uniform around fit chicks, but the motion might be better for passing than that argument!

It's late, here's to overturning this in the morrow!

But it's 2 in the morning and it's quite possible the above two paragraphs are total male cow excrement. In which case, I still say the procedural point is your best approach and refer you to my post above in case they won't see reason.

 

[In-Limbo]

Was wondering when we were going to see this.

Aren't these the cnuts who drove the "boycott everything that even looks like it might be isreali" campaign up until the point that the entire academic world pointed out, "oi, you're chuffin stupid and giving out degrees?!!"

I suggest some outrage is in order here.

 

[Archimedes]

I have a suspicion that the European Convention on Human Rights may be handy too, although bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer, merely suggesting a line of enquiry to follow.

Article 10 holds that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...

The motion prevents OTC members from imparting information

Article 11 holds that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Which suggests that everyone has a right to join the OTC if they wish, suggesting (a lawyer can point to holes in my reasoning) that OTC members are being denied the right to assemble and to associate with others (as individuals), while freshers are being denied their right to associate with the OTC as a group.

Article 14, meanwhile, says:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

I assume that 'other status' would include being a member of the OTC, and the motion seems to prevent the OTC members from enjoying their full rights under the convention?

I'd suggest that the freedom to associate and for individual OTC members to express their view that being in the OTC is a good thing, perhaps coupled with the attempt to prevent would-be OTC members from associating with individuals in the OTC might offer a reasonable basis for someone who knows the ins and outs of the ECHR and the HRA to give the UCLU a hard time over this. I wonder if Cherie Booth, QC would be interested in taking the case?

 

[dingerr]

Probably from the same idiots that will scream about human rights, freedom of speech and democracy.

Bunch of hipocrites.