Live!
Wed 21 Feb 2018
- The award-winning student news website of Imperial College

Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!

Discussion

Legal Wrangles Stall No-Confidence

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.
Jan 15 2007 23:18
 

The no-confidence motion against Shama Rahman is being delayed due to concerns over its legality.

Click Here for the Full Article

1. Neil   
Jan 15 2007 23:42
 

Stalking someone on Facebook for quotes is a step too far into their privacy, William.

Jan 15 2007 23:54
 

That should not have made the final version...

3. Neil   
Jan 16 2007 00:05
 

The hand of censorship moves faster than the eye!

Jan 16 2007 09:31
 

If anyone is taking bets on when the union stops paying her (assuming the motion is legal and passes- which would go against precedence), then put me down for the start of June.

Jan 16 2007 22:35
 

I thought that anything on Facebook was in the public domain. Far from 'stalking', the author has just done his research using a valuable networking tool. The Felix team used photos off Facebook for the ACC (soon-to-be-sport imperial) Bar Night spread. So there..

Jan 16 2007 22:39
 

In general I'd only approve of that if it was absolutely necessary to the story, or provided additional impact. I chose to remove a quote from facebook as it wasn't necessary to include it - the extra impact/information wasn't worth it. Better to save stalker-esque behaviour for when it really counts and isn't just used for padding.

7. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 22:45
 

see, someone agrees with me about sport imperial/acc

Jan 16 2007 22:49
 

Fair enough, ed. I think the comment about 'lies' did add to the imact of the story however. jesus - I agree with you about AAC/SI - but not your hateful tone towards sabbs and their jobs, of which you seem to have very little understanding and too many wild unfounded opinions)

9. Neil   
Jan 17 2007 00:57
 

I agree that if you confess to something on a public networking website then you shouldn't be surprised if someone else reads it.

However in this case, the comment was an off the cuff quip but was not presented as such in the article.

This is typical tabloid journalism and Live is usually a cut above that.

Jan 19 2007 11:26
 

Surely if the sabbaticals have signed a contract of employment they must be considered full-time Union Staff. Therefore any discussion of their performance must contravene Staff Student Protocol?

11. Editor   
Jan 19 2007 11:37
 

It's a bit of a grey area. With a strict interpretation, then yes they would be. Clearly in a democratic system that is not an acceptable situation.

The spirit of SSP is to stop the union getting claims of constructive dismissal should a lynch mob of students or media chase a member of staff out. The sabbs have not been employed for long enough to have that protection: only protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, age etc.

A second year sabb would have that protection, which is why they're replacing the contracts next year.

Unless instructed otherwise Live! articles and moderation will proceed on the basis that the SSP does not apply to sabbs.

Add your comment:

If you can see this, something is broken (either with your browser, or with our system). Please leave the box below empty, or your comment will be considered to be spam.
Live!
Live!