Mon 19 Mar 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!

Live! - News

No Confidence Confirmed

Jan 11 2007 20:54
Ashley Brown
Live! has seen a copy of the forthcoming motion of no-confidence against Deputy President (Graduate Students) Shama Rahman.
"Imperial College Union has no confidence in the Deputy President (Graduate Students)"

The no-confidence motion rumoured to be brought against Deputy President (Graduate Students) Shama Rahman has been confirmed, although not submitted. Live! has seen a copy of the motion, which has the 20 seconders required to bring it to Union Council. The list reads like a who's-who of union politics and includes all three faculty union presidents.

The paper, introduced by Deputy President (Finance & Services) Jon Matthews, contains around 25 pages of evidence to support the claim that the position of Miss Rahman has become untenable.

Failure to Perform

The no-confidence motion highlights a number of areas where the DPGS is alleged not to have fulfilled the requirements of her position, many of which have been covered on Live! previously. Miss Rahman's failure to arrive at the office by 10am is brought up again, along with evidence that one of the only times she has arrived before 10am was after a previous Live! article criticising her tardiness. When challenged about this previously she has indicated that she has been late to the office so often due to meetings with postgraduate students scheduled in the morning.

Welcome meeting was a bit of a shambles too. Shama couldn't make it at the last minute even though she had been fine about it for 6 weeks or so; something in Brixton from 6pm, I guess social rather than union-based.
Email from member of College staff to DPFS, regarding Clayponds welcome event

Evidence included alleges Miss Rahman has neglected several of her duties, ranging from attending meetings to answering welfare issues via email, culminating in an allegation of misleading Union Council.

The missed meeting with the Deputy Rector rears its head again, along with a missed meeting with the College Head of Catering. Miss Rahman has defended missing these meetings: the first was missed due to her confusion at the change to GMT - the meeting occured on the Monday before the change from BST, leading to a confusion over which week the clocks changed and in which direction. The second occurence came about due to confusion as to the location of the meeting, with the two parties standing at different entrances to the SCR.

One particular welfare issue, regarding working hours for international students, was not answered for almost a month, leading a member of College staff to contact the DPFS (himself a graduate student) to ask for a follow up.


Miss Rahman was questioned at Union Council in December as to why she missed QARC, to which she replied she was organising the new venue for her Christmas Ball. Live! has seen an invoice for the venue paid on the 6th December, before the meeting of QARC on the 8th. In response to this Miss Rahman has stated that she was phoning people individually to ensure that they were happy with the change of venue.

A formal written warning was issued to Miss Rahman regarding a number of these issues, dated 5th December. While her absence at QARC came after this warning, there is some rather more damning evidence of misconduct. Live! has seen emails provided to Felix by an anonymous source where Miss Rahman admits to planning a sickie for the 15th December. She responded that "this sickie was never pulled" and it was said in jest.

Speaking to Felix, Miss Rahman blamed a lack of training and an obstructive attitude from the Deputy President (Finance & Services) for her poor performance. She has now received the appropriate finance training which she missed over summer, but claims it took a month and a half of pestering, during which time the revelant people were "too busy".

Email this Article | Share on Facebook | Print this Article

Discussion about “No Confidence Confirmed”

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 12 2007 00:10

Small minded politicians...

2. jesus   
Jan 13 2007 02:47

The only reason any of the sabbatical officers got voted in in the first place is because barely any of the cool kids actually give two s**ts and a f*ck what goes on upstairs in the union. They are all too busy drinking.

If anyone actually gave a toss we might have got some good sabbatical officers for once, instead of the collection of village idiots we seem to have acquired from around the UK.

The only officer I have any sort of respect for is the felix editor. Perhaps it is something in the water in the offices upstairs in the union that inflates the egos of everyone who drinks from the Fountain of Sabb and turns them all into chumpmonkeys, which is not present in the water cooler in the Felix offices. WHO KNOWS, it is a mystery we may never solve.

In conclusion I think it is highly hypocritical of any sabbatical officer to forward a paper citing no confidence in another sabb, when NONE OF THEM SEEM ABLE TO DO THEIR JOBS WITHOUT lemonING UP.

Jan 14 2007 12:13

Ha ha, as much as I love Andy Sykes I think the use of the phrase "cool kids" has singled you out as one of his buddies. But good on Felix for getting jesus to big up the sabb-with-a-little-s.

Can you please describe some of these "lemonINGs UP" please?

4. mary   
Jan 14 2007 13:25

jesus has a point, most of the sabbs are career politians who are obtuse, unfriendly and arrogant.

what would it take for a no confidence vote on the two jo(h)nnies?

Jan 14 2007 13:30

A paper submitted to Council, with many good reasons and 20 seconders.

Negative personality traits aren't good enough reasons, so you'd have to come up with something better.

Jan 14 2007 15:09

Jesus and Mary (and lets throw Joseph in for luck),

Ok so you might not be happy with the way the sabbs are running things. In that case tell them. They are not "obtuse, unfriendly and arrogant" and I am sure if you have something more constructive to say they will be very happy to listen to you. They are, afterall, there to represent us. It is difficult enough to represent the uninterested Imperial College student without people actively working against you.

"If anyone actually gave a toss we might have got some good sabbatical officers for once, instead of the collection of village idiots we seem to have acquired from around the UK". The sabbs are the people who give a toss and are not idiots by any stretch of the imagination. Their job is very difficult and this years team as far as I can tell are doing reasonably well. It is clearly a thankless job but one which takes a lot of courage and determination to fulfill properly. They will endeavor to work for your best interests even though you clearly don't appear to want them to. If you think you could do better then maybe you should stand this year.

"I think it is highly hypocritical of any sabbatical officer to forward a paper citing no confidence in another sabb." Surely the sabbs are the only ones who have a clear day to day perspective on each others perfomance. If Jon feels that Shama is not doing her job properly and that as a result it is affecting the performance of the whole team, he has every right to say so. bringing a no confidence motion to council does not mean that council will approve it. It just gives us the chance to discuss it. A very sensible idea in my opinion.

A lot of the problems with the sabbatical positions is that people love to hate them. The union would be a much nicer place if there was less backstabbing and bickering. I am sure that every sabb has felt that they were supported all the way up to their elctions and then dropped like a ton of bricks. Jesus and Mary you need to stop picking at faults and instead try to come up with some constructive comments. I will be much more likely to respect what you have to say.


Welfare Campaigns Officer

And for the record the water in Felix is the same as the water in the union and in SAC as I have had to go and collect replacements on many occaisions.

7. .!   
Jan 14 2007 23:54

Collect water replacements? What's wrong with the pipes which already pipe water into the union?

Why must you ruin our environment by having water transfered by lorry when there is a perfectly good tap?


8. mary   
Jan 15 2007 00:58

kirsty: yes its easy to rant on a message board. and good on them for actually taking a year out and helping with our wonderful union. but that doesnt mean our points arent valid. they are still rude, they are still narrow minded, they are still damn right annoying.

but thats just my opinion, and whether you respect it or not i couldnt give a t*ss. but you should respect our right to voice them. as i respect your right to voice yours.

sadly too many students cant be bothered to voice their opinions be it in polls, elections or forums such as these.

i dont believe there anyone can have the wrong type of opinion as you alluded to. and i dont believe taking the high and mighty attitude of "stop picking at faults and instead try to come up with some constructive comments" is a wise path to be going down.

if they have faults then let them be highlighted. even if it is personal traits. sabbs are meant to be working on our behalf so i think having a warm and welcoming nature should be very important to them.

you wouldnt put up with a rude or arrogant MP. so why should you put up with a rude sabb?

i must say, by in large my experience with sabbs has been a pleasant one. most are nice and friendly. there are some exceptions, however.

Jan 15 2007 08:54

Obtuse? UNFRIENDLY? Are we talking about the same John here?

And would these be the career politicians who tried to ban 2-year sabbs? Hmm.

Jan 15 2007 09:50

Dear Mary

I am sorry if I or any of my colleagues have ever offended you at some point. If you really care about the conduct of me or any other sabb, then please write to me. If you don't at least tell me what you're unhappy about, then there is very little I can do to change things.

11. Ed   
Jan 15 2007 11:10

What I'm more concerned about is why she's getting 2 months full pay after being suspended. If she's so incompetent, why should she get that money?

12. Meh   
Jan 15 2007 14:46

OH OH! I heard today that Jon Matthews' supposed evidence stems from him 'monitoring' her email account after access to it was never withdrawn after the summer! Talk about invasion of privacy and legality issues here!

Jan 15 2007 18:28


Jan 15 2007 23:55

shhhhhhhh!!!! we dont talk about that

15. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 00:24

kirsty, it is all very well to stand up for the sabbatical officers, i am sure they will appreciate it.

to voice my opinion (which in my view is neither wrong nor right it is simply what i think about the situation) on a couple of your points:

if the sabbatical officers have student backing all the way up to elections and are then so CRUELLY dropped when they finally win their position it is only because they - like any other politician - make promises they cannot or will not keep. for instance lowering prices at the bar, which never happened, central core of the union finished by november, yeah right. i could go on but quite frankly there would be no point, it would just fill up the message board with failures, which you don't want to talk about by the tone of your post.

secondly, if indeed there we should "stop picking at faults and instead try to come up with some constructive comments" then why is DPGS being no-confidenced? is it because of all the constructive comments she has been given? no, it is because SOMEONE HAS WRITTEN A PAPER PICKING ON HER FAULTS.

thirdly i have never heard three better adjectives to describe most of the union officers than "obtuse, unfriendly and arrogant". the number of times i have witnessed sabbs acting high and mighty around other students makes me sick. i think the worst was when i heard one of the DPFS's (can't remember which one) threaten to refuse to sign off the pay for a member of union bar staff whom they had been in some kind of altercation with. excuse me??! that is blatant abuse of power. "I pay you" well guess what mate, WE PAY YOU TO DO YOUR JOB. and i will reiterate, i do not think any of our current sabbaticals are doing their job properly, and i would no confidence the lot of them if i were given half a chance, which i will not be.

but of course, this is all just my <i>opinion</i>.

peace and love,

Jesus H Christ

16. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 00:28

oh, and if college were paying john matthew's mortgage and he was living in the house that would be fine, but if i were to find out that he were living in halls rent free AND having his mortgage paid, i would have to kick up a fuss.

oh, and computer hackers don't go to heaven. my dad said so.

17. Eugene   
Jan 16 2007 01:40

Adding a tuppence worth to these discussions, I can see both sides of the story... having had a fair amount of day to day contact with the sabbs, I realise that its not an easy job for them to do and most sabbs never quite realise what they're letting themselves in for when they stand in February with a whole load of election points which can never be fulfilled due to the sheer amount of bureaucracy and paperwork involved. Becoming a sabb seems to be all about attending meeting after meeting and one has very little time to really 'get things done'.

People don't appreciate what sabbs do because they can't see all these daily meetings and paperwork - it is too easy to be unaware of what happens in the union above club level, and as i mentioned before, you don't fully understand the job until you have to do it yourself.

However I do think that sabbs do not often make themselves the most approachable of people towards average students, and i frequently find the lack of real 'action' very frustrating. i know it is because of all the red tape and everything has to approved at meetings etc, but workings in the central union should be a lot more transparent. I hope the reforms will cut all the clutter and make it easier for us to get what we want from the union and for the sabb officers to serve our best interests.

another random thought i've had is that the design of the union building does not invite random students to make contact with sabbs: one only goes there for a reason - to deal with the union and you wouldn't be able to 'drop in' on the off chance like you would if the sabbs offices were on the Walkway. this probably further enhances the divide between elected sabb officers and us 'mere mortals'

oh, and sabbs generally do not get to live in halls rent free. Jon Matthews may have it now because he is undertaking a sub-warden's position in halls which has free rent as one of its main perks, but normally one would have hall rent deducted from wages.

Jan 16 2007 09:14

The Central core being finished by November was not an election pledge by any of the current team, it was said by last year's Sabbs when they started the project. By the time the new lot came into office there was already a big hole in the staircase.

Some drinks prices have been cut- not all, some were already as cheap as the breweries would allow- and most were already cheaper than you'll find in any pubs around south kensington.

Oh, and a reference to some past DPFS whose name you can't remember as it was so long ago. Clearly all John's fault, obviously.

Do go on with your list... and try to limit yourself to this year's team this time.

Jan 16 2007 10:04

The main hurdle for Sabbs trying to carry out election pledges is not "red tape" (to be honest most of the masses of form filling happens around clubs), it is people not agreeing with them once they are in office. i.e. Council will say no, Exec will say no etc.

Jan 16 2007 10:08

Then there are "operational issues", something which needs to be dealt with ASAP...

21. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 14:50

NONE of the drinks prices have been cut and i know that for a fact. i think that the fact they were as cheap as the breweries would allow probably says something about the amount of research put into the election promise to cut prices, dont you?

also i think you will see that i didn't blame john for saying that to a member of staff. i think the fact that it is difficult for me to remember which of the arrogant idiots who took up DPFS over the last five or so years did says something about the sort of people who get elected to this position.

also, i can honestly say i have witnessed the straw-boatered bombshell himself ask somebody "do you know who i am" when they were picking some kind of fight with him. in addition to which in my experience sabbaticals always seem to believe that they should be served first at the bar! do we pay them £20 odd grand a year to get served first? er, no.

i would like to state again that my opinion is purely that, and that my real opinion is that SABBATICAL OFFICERS WALK AROUND LIKE THEY ARE GODS GIFT. and if daddy gave me one of THEM for christmas, i would take it back to the shop.


Jan 16 2007 16:38

If daddy gave them to YOU for Christmas, they'd run back themselves!

Jan 16 2007 16:49

The drinks prices cut so far have been on spirit+mixer deals on Weds and Friday night. Apparently your fact checking is not quite robust enough.

Jan 16 2007 17:19

It's all very well having spirit and mixer deals, but the beer (or at least the proper beer) is ridiculously expensive. Charging close to £3 for a pint on a regular basis is not impressive. Even less impressive is a sabb who got a number of votes by explicitly condemning the high pint prices and promising to lower them, doing nothing of the sort.

Jan 16 2007 19:13

There are plans to bring in a permanent ale at a lower price. You could also get an IPA for < £2 on Friday.

What you should be calling for is a return to displaying the price of the ales on a board (we have the range up, but not the price). Email the DPFS and discuss it.

26. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 20:22

perhaps if the bar managers hadn't all been ousted from their jobs, the prices would still be on the board.

just a thought!!

27. mary   
Jan 16 2007 20:55

looks like old john did promise to lower drinks prices. the price of softs is still 90p (not the £1.10 he lied about on his website). shock horror. he hasnt done what he promised. oh well. i guess we have to put up with him.

the ale boards we all carefully compiled and hand written by the student members of the bar staff and bar stewards whenever they got the chance before it got busy. sadly now that the bar managers have been sacked (for what reason i still dont quite fully understand) and all senior bar staff have quit over it - it leaves an inexperienced bar staff who probably dont even know where the felt tip pens for the ale boards are.

was part of john's master plan to ruin the union bar as well?

on an unrelated note: so jon matthews is a subwarden at fisher halls? does that mean he is living there rent free? and let me get this straight he also has a mortgate to pay off. well done to him for playing the system i guess. does he also fulfill his duties as a subwarden? wow! i wonder where he gets the time to be so rude to people then?

Jan 16 2007 21:36

Judging from the far from civil discussion on this notice board I can see that a lot of people commenting on the 'rudeness' of the sabbatical staff can give just as good as they get.

I have never had a member of the sabbatical team speak to me rudely. I find them all perfectly amiable and see most of them everyday for some reason or another. Perhaps it is the manner with which you treat said people which means they treat you the way they do in return. Only a suggestion.

And I would like to also add clarification to the fact that bar prices have been lowered in some cases and there are plans to make other alterations (or so I have heard). As a member of bar staff myself (who hasn't worked since the previous managers were sacked but will be returning to work tomorrow) I understand that a lot has been learnt from the current situation. While I disagree entirely with the staffing decision I can see that a lot is being done to improve the situation we have been left with. This includes (finally) listening to the staff.

29. ..   
Jan 16 2007 22:04

look what happens to objectivity when a said person has carnal knowledge of a sabbatical. rose-tinted glasses perhaps?

30. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 22:05

Kirsty, I can only assume from the fact that you intend to return to work at the bar that you did not work there for very long under the old management. Therefore I am not sure you are qualified to make such value judgements about before and after management paradigm shift. Also I would like to point out for clarification that the old bar managers were not sacked, they took voluntary redundancy rather than work under the new conditions they were offered. If they were sacked, there would be umpteen good reasons for three cases of unfair dismissal against the union and NOBODY wants that, do they.

If only the bar staff had been listened to earlier, perhaps the bar would have been running smoothly all this time and would have retained its highly skilled and motivated senior student staff! Only a suggestion.

Oh and someone up there asked me to continue my list, so I thought I would just use this space to remind John Collins of his election promises and what he still has left to fulfil before July, seeing as he won't be standing for another year as he disagrees with 2-year sabbs:

a. Improve the library ? sorry John but the library hasn?t changed a bit, it still smells, it?s still overcrowded and GUESS WHAT?! Now you?re a sabb, you don?t even have to go in there

b. Improve security guard complaints procedure ? this was never going to happen. I complained about one once, won?t be trying that again? they all look at me with an air of suspicion about them now.

c. Introduce new equalities officers to the welfare committee ? I might not have noticed this one but I never saw ?em

d. Negotiate new arrangement with ULU to reflect our new relationship with the University of London ? SO you just arranged to not be friends with them any more. Fair enough, Johnny boy

e. Organise a referendum on membership of the NUS ? and organised the result too, how thoughtful of you

f. Reform union?s governance to make it simpler and more representative ? so far this has involved? getting rid of all the commercial services managers? How representative is that?

g. Ban sabbatical officers from standing for re-election ? not happened yet

h. Set up a scrutiny committee to hold Exec and Sabb officers to account and report to union council ? again, not seen it

i. Relax election rules ? is this to let people cheat next time without anyone noticing?

j. Monitor and improve new website ? omg! One out of twelve. Props to John Collins!

k. Support diversity and ensure constituent unions continue to run and create their own clubs and societies if they want to ? which involved doing precisely SFA, I warrant a guess. What, you mean that people in these unions can still do what they always could?! good work

l. Ensure ACC remains part of ICU ? sport imperial does indeed appear to be taking over, too bad

m. Introduce dedicated member of staff or sabb for sports clubs ? no, hasn?t happened. Too busy firing and hiring elsewhere.

n. Campaign to keep union gym free for students ? Sameena managed to get us more free gym time, and I have heard nothing about it since.

o. Try to fund full time sabb presidents of CCU?s ? HA HA HA HA!!! i would love to see you even begin to try that

p. Devolve more powers to his buddies in the CCU?s ? hasn?t happened but ?devolve? is a really good political-sounding word, isn?t it

q. Champion student interests at Wye ? to be fair I don?t know, I try not to go near Wye. So he could have built a multi-million pound complex there with high-tech stables for all the horses which pander to their every need, a race track and a bookies and I wouldn?t know.

r. Encourage staff and sabbs to visit faculty unions - what, are they going to go visit RCSU in their broom cupboard?

s. Campaign for money from centenary fund for CCU?s ? again not something I have heard much about, perhaps if you ask the students to help you might get somewhere. Lots of them have rich mummies and daddies.

t. Ensure new union building is energy efficient, sustainable, flexible ? well it might be John, when it is finally built, but it is certainly not currently time-efficient

u. Organise huge fundraising campaigns to fill funding gap ? I might have given you a fiver, but you didn?t ask, so I guess your fundraising campaigns were just not big enough for my tiny mind

v. Reduce drinks prices in SK bars, especially soft drinks ? I don?t think that promos on Wednesdays and Fridays really count, especially since they were already in place before you came in, and just because they have changed which drinks they reduce does not mean that overall the bar is any cheaper. Oh, and to be honest, reducing them much more in real life would probably be morally dubious

w. Pursue existing plans to refurbish the bars ? all planned out for you was it? If it was planned so very far in advance how come the furniture all arrived three months after the bars reopened for business? By the way, its kind of hideous

x. Set a cap for £2 mid term Friday night entry fee ? congratulations, that?s almost two you managed!

y. Find new ways of serving postgraduate community ? like helping their sabb to do her job? Or isn't it easier to just no-confidence her, like the previous sabbs tried to remove the previous DPGS, instead of re-evaluating the position and what is expected of it - which is obviously currently a tall order, seeing as none of the elected people seem to be able to stand in the position without someone trying to get them back out of it for some reason.

And of course all of the above is merely OPINION so let's not get too excited about it. This is, after all, a forum for lively debate!

31. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 22:08

and whilst i was compiling my -pretty amazing- list, someone hits the nail on the head. carnal knowledge, how interesting. and out of wedlock too... i'm sure i'm supposed to have some kind of opinion on that.

Enjoy your shift at the bar tomorrow Kirsty, won't you.

Jan 16 2007 22:32

"jesus" - you make some good points about items JC has not fulfilled, however some of them are plain wrong, or in progress at the moment and you've missed them.

I'm not in the habit of defending sabbs, quite the opposite in fact, but I'd rather bash them for doing things wrong than make stuff up.

a. Library - refurb underway now, redevelopment of Level 1 on the cards

c. Equal Ops Officers - plan for this discussed at RWB today, involves campaigns officers to do the equal ops work in different fields

d. ULU - sports agreement in place, ULU are setting up a London Student Assembly which aims to cover the needs of non-ULU institutions

f. Governance - commercial services managers has nothing to do with governance. There's been a governance review, the second stage of which would have removed people from Council and added more ordinary members (so more representative). Then there was a realisation that ordinary members in general tend to be lousy and that might not be a good idea. There's a briefing document on this, probably on the web somewhere.

m. Had you read the article on the sports partnership you would have seen that part of the deal involves a part IC, part ICU member of staff for sport.

r. CGCU and RCSU have a good relationship with their staff. JC is working to get the RCSU out of their broom cupboard and helped with the protest today by getting the people involved to see it, then come out and talk to the students.

t. Energy Efficient Building - the lack of time-efficiency was a result of poor planning in the previous phase, started BEFORE this lot came in. The lack of double glazing was also part of that c**k-up. Future phases are intended to be energy efficient and plans will come to Council soon.

u. Fundraising - fundraising from students is pointless, not enough money. Centenary events are aimed at getting money from alumni, who will be invited to the centenary ball for this reason.

y. You will find that many officers have helped the DPGS, including the sabbatical team. There is a disagreement as to whether the DPFS helped or hindered her, however she has received assistance from others. There are concerns about her performance which will be discussed at Council, who can decide whether its due to the other sabbs failing her, a deficiency with the position, or one with the person. You are welcome to no-confidence the other sabbs if you wish, you need 20 seconders. If as many people feel as annoyed as you, then you could probably try and get rid of the lot of them.

20 seconders, a lot of them union officers (and some postgrads), have decided that the no-confidence is at least worth discussing at council. Don't make it out to be just one sabb - it requires 20 people.

Jan 16 2007 22:43

I was about to say something along the same lines but my computer timed out.

I will add that Alissa, the new member of BUSA specialist staff, is wonderful and you will find her in the Students Activities Centre.

The Governance Review is a genius. The Court has been set up to scrutinise and hold Exec and Sabb officers to account and report to union council. Equal Opurtunities Officers is someting I personally support all the way and will hopefully be introduced very soon.

The Centenary is an excellent oppurtunity for fundraising and advertisement, especially for clubs. A&E are behind it all the way!

I love the new bar furniture. It is pretty clear the bars are not finished, another new paint job has been rumoured, but I think the final product is looking to be quite promising.

You can't fail to notice the scaffolding in the library.. oh no wait you did!

John and Ben worked very hard to secure the agreement with ULU that allows our sports clubs to stay in the ULU cup. Most of ULU council were against it!

I could go on. Maybe you should do more research before you think your list is so impressive.

34. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 22:44

dear ashley, thankyou for your comments, and your partial agreement, partial disagreement. i love a good natter about these things.

a) well, it was about time. you can tell how much i study can't you.

c) to be fair, i could barely have known that

d) so we're agreeing to play with them? but not be their best friend. okay, i never said he didnt do it anyway... just noted how!

f) i don't read briefings from council meetings very regularly, unless i am absolutely desperate to fall into a deeep coma and never wake up. so i missed this. touche.

m) i read that article, i read between the lines, and i know sport imperial are taking over. and you know i know.

r) okay, but the staff still don't really visit them any more. i know it's not john's fault they are in a broom cupboard. i'm just saying that there probably isn't any space in there for them to be visited. and what if TWO staff members turned up at once to visit? it would be a logistical nightmare.

t) John states on his election site that he was involved with the previous planning phase, and the union restructuring, so i win

u) is that it though, really? my dad is an alumni and he's not been asked for any money apart from by college so far. i think it's being left a bit late. the union was supposed to be being refurbed for the centenary celebrations, and we're instead using the celebrations to ask for money to help refurb it. seems backward.

y) help they might, but still, i think it's rapidly becoming obvious that there is a problem with this position. i don't believe it was thought out correctly when it was implemented two years ago, and not enough has been done to redress the balance in my opinion.

unfortunately i have more important things to do than no confidence sabbatical officers. there are lepers to be cured.

but thanks for the invite.

Jan 16 2007 22:52


1. I've just worked a 15 hour day delivering some of the points you raised above (equalities officers and RCSU Office amongst other things).

2. I think it's been pointed out that I have been over-ruled by council on a couple of these issues (e.g. two year sabbs) and I am well on the way to delivering others.

3. Please stop referring to yourself as the son of God. It's annoying, discourteous and offensive.

Jan 16 2007 22:53

f) unfortunately I've become immune to these comas, although I do tend to read these documents just before I go bed.

m) no comment!

t) fair enough, you can apportion some blame if he claims that.

u) the refurb isn't supposed to be *for* the centenary. The idea was to get funding during the centenary year as part of the big appeal. There will be an alumni mailshot going out soon which will include a union insert/pages with events and fundraising info. College is very protective of its list of alumni emails...

y) I agree there is a problem with the position. Shama also agrees there is a problem with the position ... I don't think anyone disputes that there is a problem with the position. The DPGS and DPFS were mandated to investigate what could be done to "fix" it, but nothing has been done - I'm sure they both have different reasons as to why this is the case.

37. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 23:13

Mr Collins,

1. Poor you. I have worked longer days on lesser projects. Rest assured that you are paid enough to do it.

2. I will believe it when I see it

3. So is your face.

Please remember that a little humour sometimes helps the nasty union hack medicine go down


Jan 16 2007 23:14

I've been asked to donate (graduated 2005), so the mail shot is certainly reaching people.

Jan 16 2007 23:23

To start with I was worried about Jesus' clear misunderstanding of the interior workings of the union and his inability to think before he spoke. Now I just think he's a bit of an idiot.

'So is your face' is such an immature remark to resort to when you have been shown to be wrong. I think if you are going to rise to the seriousness of the allegations you are throwing left right and centre you could also consider growing up with it.

Jan 16 2007 23:31

Haha! I had to look up 'carnal'. I really shouldn't have admitted that in public.

If people are so interested in my personal life with relation to a certain sabb then maybe they would like to comment on the fact I will still defend said person despite alleged 'carnal knowledge' no longer being of consequence. *Giggles hysterically*

41. jesus   
Jan 16 2007 23:43

oh dear, it seems that this discussion has now resorted to the words "grow up"

i think my lack of knowledge probably reflects the fact that most of what happens in the union runs undisclosed to the general student public

be union hacks all you like, i am off to bed safe in the knowledge that none of you were intelligent enough to crack my cunning pseudonym

i win!

ps john, i used to have a tiny bit of respect for you, because at least you ran. but you ran knowing full well what the job involved and now you are whinging about what long hours you are working. and please, please don't pretend that students can come and talk to you about "issues" they have with how you are running things because i tried it, and you ignored me.

42. mary   
Jan 17 2007 01:03

shame on you kirsty for calling jesus an idiot. he is the son of god and my offspring as well. i will not have you talking like that about my boy. i'll tell your mother on you.

on another yet unrelated note. jesus has been around the union for ~2000 years (its a figurative estimate before you all start yelling at me) so i would kinda tend to respect his opinion if only on the grounds that he's been here longer and knows more about the union - in that sense.

kirsty, may i ask how long you have been around the union (and not just in a sabbs panties)?

and dont pretend you ever were bar staff. that is just an insult to everyone who did work at the bar. you should refer to yourself as "new" or "currently in the process of learning".

also i'd like to say: although it would be impossible to be made into UNION LAW! i think all sabbs and prospective sabbs should have had some experience working behind the bar, or in catering, or as stewards. anyone who has worked there (not you kirsty) knows that the actual running of the union is done there.

the day to day union that the students see is not sabbs or council or exec. only a small minority of the student body understands or even cares what happens there. no, its the bars catering and stewarding staff out on the front lines that make the union what it is.

quite frankly why we put up with minimum wage is quite beyond me. for all the s**t we get. not just from drunken sabbs. but from rude customers as well. and us having to take it and smile.

to be openly denied a pay rise by Jon in his campaigning hustings thingy last year in the JCR (look it up if there are any records of that. sameena was there. she'll tell you) and to be told that the part time staff arent important in the running of the union just confirms to me that his arrogance and utter contempt for people.

my point being that a sabb who has been through this his/ her uni life working in one of these places. been swore at and talked down to and occasionally spat at would be more in touch with student opinion and ten times more friendly than the two jo(h)nnies. i'd prefer a sabb who worked at the bar over a pencil necked pen pushing geek with the charisma of a wet sponge who's sole experience is that he/ she sat on lots of clubs and societies boards.

i'm not saying that new sabbs should be spat on (although that would be funny) just that a little humility goes a long way. it will make you a better sabb.

43. jesus   
Jan 17 2007 01:27

just a couple of salient points:

1. i like my posts better when they are on the pink background. from now on i'm going to try only to post on even numbers.

2. hey john... I have the same initials as you! JC! how cool is that?! do you wanna be my initials twin!?

3. i'm surprised half of the comments here haven't been removed already as they seem to be in breach of staff-student protocol. unless that doesn't apply to old staff, in which case it's time for mr sykes to run his article on what the sabbs did to the bar and catering managers...

Jan 17 2007 08:53

I've been around the union for as long as I have been around college. That might not be as long as Jesus, although to be quite honest if he is claiming to be the Christ I wouldn't want to call myself Christian, but I would say I have a reasonable amount of experience on both student staff issues at the union and as a volunteer officer.

I find it interesting Mary that you feel the PAID student staff have more to give and more valued opinions than the VOLUNTEER student staff who you refer to so dismissively.

The day to day running of the union is not what people see on the surface. Are you telling me that the staff on the counter at Marks&Spencers know more about running a business than the people sat in board meetings that you never see. It is the same with the union. If student staff were thrown into the back room politics with no other experience they would most probably drown.

As a volunteer officer I give far more to the union outside my working hours and work much harder. I also have a lot more responsibility. I think this just goes to show that you certainly shouldn't rely on the experience of staff at the bar because I wouldn't trust you to run the union as far as I could throw you. This is not to say I wouldn't trust you to run the bar because I am sure you are excellent at running a bar, or stewarding and I think that the bar staff need to have more input into the running of the bar and their ideas are usually very sensible. By making the comments that you have you are digging a hole for all the bar staff by being very narrow minded.

As a matter of interest - I'm not happy with minimum wage either. It doesn't really take into account that this is London. Does anyone know what the channels are for trying to get this raised?

I'd also prefer it if my personal relationships were not dragged into the discussion. It seems a bit below the belt even for the mudslingings of Live!

45. Editor   
Jan 17 2007 08:57

I'm sure someone will complain to me about SSP, however I consider the posts so far to be within that because:

  • the staff referred to have left
  • the one inaccuracy I was going to remove (bar managers sacked) was corrected (bar managers took redundancy)
  • the only criticism of people involved in the process has been aimed at the sabbs, not current staff

The posts will stay, unless I hear a good argument against it.

Jan 17 2007 09:00

Hey Jesus, jow's it going? Where hav you been? In all honesty I'm slightly suprised you exist, gonna have to rethink things.

How can you insult people for reading Council minutes when you have evidently gone through JC's whole, laborious internet manifesto, which I know is a beast since I had to read it as sabb returning officer?

Also, as has been pointed out, nearly EVERYTHING you said was erroneous, and then you seem to hint that this is not your fault because you didn't know. I guess there was no internet access in that cave you've been sharing with Elvis for the last coupla thousand years.

And out of curiosity (and I do apologise if I missed you saying this) have you ever worked as a member of student staff? If now then shut up your face, and your mum's face too. So there.

James Millen


SCC Chair



Returning officer

Alt Music chair 2004-5

From Dorset

Tall, dark hair, blue eyes, winning smile

New clubs committee

Clubs and Societies board

likes long walks, going to restauants and bestiality

Friend of the Sabbs and sabbs

member of cheese society

sometimes write for felix

ooh ooh had a radio show once

Jan 17 2007 09:01

Oh, and "Currently in the process of learning" is not an appropriate tag to give me as Si suggested I would need to have adequate experience working in a bar before I even applied. So I did. I didn't use the term "new" because there are a whole bunch of new staff working under new managers who never worked under Si, Mick or Rob. And I'm not one of them either. So I haven't worked at the bar for very long and when I have it has been intermittently. However, I wasn't aware that this discussion was related to how long I had worked at the bar and I would like to point out that there are other areas of the union that employ student staff (of which I am one). Then again, have you even heard of SAC, never mind know where it is?

Jan 17 2007 09:03

Oooh James - was that list longer than mine? Maybe someone will insult you for not being active in the union next! Haha.

Jan 17 2007 10:43

Oi, Millen,

I was returning officer for last year's Sabbatical elections in which Mr Collins stood for office! Stop telling porkies!


50. mary   
Jan 17 2007 11:09

kirsty: do i belive that VOLUNTEER student staff are less important. well i'm sorry if you thought i said that but i looked over my post again and cant really see a reference to that. my opinion, they just as important. so there.

do i believe that counter staff at M&S know more about running a business than board members. well, dear, when it comes to a massive company like M&S i'd like to at least imagine that they hire the very best for their managerial roles. people who have had years or maybe decades of experience elsewhere. the union i dont believe has this luxury. and my point (that you so nicely glossed over) was that I would prefer a sabb who had put up with s**t from rude/ drunk sabbs/ students. for a sabb who had done this would be more likely, IN MY OPINION, to be friendly and accomodating to all students in their role as sabb. you develop a certain attitude and level of camaraderie between your fellow staff that isnt lost even when you leave that job. and that, i think, would be of enormous value to a sabb. personally i think that some of the sabbs in the past didnt even have good social skills to start with. but thats just my opinion. it would help all sabbs.

if you wouldnt trust me to run the union as far as you could throw me then dont. i dont trust you either. cool, now we are equal.

also, kirsty, the fact that Si told you that you needed adequate working experience tells me one thing. he didnt want to hire you in the first place. the only shame is that you thwarted his attempts to send you away by telling him you did have bar experience. that and perhaps he didnt want to upset your friend you also works at the bar. just a thought. mull that one over. there are plenty of poeple who didnt have an ounce of bar experience but were hired by Si/ Rob/ Mick. they went on to be extremely good bar staff.

no the discussion isnt how long kirsty has worked at the bar, but her attempts to sound as if she was one of the old bar staff is, like i said, very insulting to actual old bar staff. know your position, "new or currently learning"

james: i actually quite like you. good on you for liking cheese. its delicious. now you are someone i would take seriously. as i know you've been at uni more than a year. top man!

51. jesus   
Jan 17 2007 11:16

so much ammunition, hurrah!

"As a volunteer officer I give far more to the union outside my working hours and work much harder. I also have a lot more responsibility. I think this just goes to show that you certainly shouldn't rely on the experience of staff at the bar because I wouldn't trust you to run the union as far as I could throw you. "

Have you met any of the old members of senior bar staff? Here's some things you can say about bar stewards

1) they all work very long hours for just over minimum wage

2) they don't always get paid for doing work at the bar, for instance helping out when the bar is busy and they were there on a night out, staying behind later than they want to to make sure the student staff can have their drinks if they want to, coming in for staff meetings with the managers if requested, etc etc.

3) what do bar staff give to the union?

a) friendly service, of course

b) front line when it comes to talking to students, or listening to students whinge about what's going on in the union

c) dealing with incidents and accidents around the union when on duty

d) CLEARING OUT THE BUILDING WHEN THERE IS A FIRE, i have never seen a volunteer student officer potentially risk their life to see if anyone is stuck in meeting room 3

e) you say they haven't got as much responsibility, but they are responsible for the whole premises licence, the customers, and the large wad of cash in the safe - as far as i am aware none of the volunteers have access to that sort of money.

saying that paid staff are less important than the volunteer staff is highly arrogant and indicative of the real problem, which is why volunteer staff tend to give the paid staff such a hard time.

Simon would never have told you that you would NEED to have adequate bar experience, because it's well known that the union bar hires on a first come first serve basis, rather than on experience - it's the way Mick liked to run things.

SAC is the student activities centre, I've been there, I've hung out there, I've used the computers there, and when I was doing that it was in the East Wing basement.

I love also how your assumption that there is such a WILD divide between the responsibility of a paid union worker and a volunteer shows exactly how much you value your job at the bar. Almost as much as you valued the managers before they left? You've only worked there since AFTER everyone knew what was happening. the atmosphere was much different then and most of the old staff had already decided to leave.

Dear James Millen,

Yes, I've worked for commercial services, for probably longer than you have even been at university by my reckoning. And guess what, I have been a volunteer too. So I do know both sides of that there coin rather well. YOUR mum.

I read JC's manifesto because I couldn't sleep, how ironic is that. Soon nodded off though

Also I'm sorry but I find your smile is far from winning, Mr Millen.

I would list my achievements, but I don't have that big a head, and besides, we've all read the bible

52. mary   
Jan 17 2007 11:17

oh and for everyone's information the SAC is in the east wing basement of beit hall. just down the corridor from the chaplaincy and the toilets.

Jan 17 2007 11:24

Perhaps my list of "achievements" was to be taken with a pinch of sarcasm

Jan 17 2007 11:34

James, i for one was most impressed by your list of achievements, unlike the goon 'Jesus' who obviously doesnt have enough faith in what he says to let us actually know who he is, and therefore become accountable for his rants...

Jan 17 2007 12:09

Mary, sorry if I insulted old bar staff, it was not the intention. The fact that I am using my real name and readily admit how long I have worked there for indicates my lack of intent to offend.

The comment that I made regarding you being incapable to run the union (in my opinion) was based on your comments in this discussion and not on your experience at the bar. I agree that working in commercial services might give sabbs more experience, but there are other jobs available outside the union and I don't think anyone is in a position to comment on someones previous customer relations experience without asking each sabb individually if they have ever worked in a shop, behind a bar, at a checkout etc etc.

Si did not tell me I NEEDED experience, he SUGGESTED it would be useful. It is becoming clear from the direction of this discussion that we have met. Therefore it concerns me that you can only slag me off from behind the anonimity of a pseudonym. If you think I am not up to working behind the union bar, or that Si didn't want to employ me in the first place, you can tell me personally. I would be interested in some of your reasons for this.

Jesus: you imply that I do not value my job behind the bar and that I did not value the previous managers. I did infact start working before the staffing issue blew up, only just. I love working in the bar, and even more in SAC. I have a lot of respect for the onld managers and have expressed my personal dissatifaction in this discussion. There are no grounds for your allegations.

I did not wish to make Volunteer staff were any less or more important than Paid staff. Just that the nature of a volunteer position shows that people are willing to give up their time for FREE and that Mary's comments were therefore offensive towards these officers.

Jan 17 2007 12:09

"friendly service, of course"

Most of the bar staff were absolute gems and the new ones seem pleasant enough. Sadly there was at least one member of the old bar staff who was rude, considered it to be his/her bar (despite being student staff) and often took a disgraceful tone with your average student (if you weren't his/her friend, or hadn't worked in the bar, then you weren't important). I believe this person was also seen throwing skiffs around, and even at people.

That behaviour should have got them fired.

I would guess that your average student doesn't care whether the bar staff are that friendly, part-time students or full-time staff. All they want is their drinks as efficiently as possible with no grief.

The new bar staff at the christmas carnival did a fantastic job, only letting themselves down by faffing over the EPOS system (for which I don't blame them, but a lack of training).

Jan 17 2007 13:17

We all know what this is about don't we?

Two previous bar staff who got fired. Strange how the bar has improved now they're not there isn't it.

Sounds like this could be why the bars were doing badly, with people like these folk behind them.

The only comments I've heard is how good the bars currently are. Nuff said.

58. hehe   
Jan 17 2007 13:28

what can i say... the students elected the wrong dpfs ;)

Jan 17 2007 13:51

Ed, stop being bitter

60. moi?!   
Jan 17 2007 13:54

im not bitter james! just find the chaos rather amusing...

61. jesus   
Jan 17 2007 14:19

disrespect the old staff as much as you want. the sabbaticals this year have been hideous, and i am just glad to be out of there

  • an alumnus who INCIDENTALLY hasn't been asked for any money.

ladies and gentlemen, jesus has left the building

Jan 17 2007 15:25

Funny that... tides start turning aginst him and Jesus leaves. Clearly he wasn't the Messiah after all.

Jan 17 2007 15:37

I'm nearly confident enough to put money on "jesus" being the member of bar staff I complained about above. The assumption it's a "he" isn't necessarily valid ... but perhaps the name is close.

Jan 17 2007 16:07

"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"

Jan 17 2007 16:12

sorry "engineer", not close enough and you will have to look elsewhere for your messiah (and your fifty pence). i see what you are getting at there though, that would have been a cunning ruse.

i have been reading this conversation with interest... as jesus and mary are close personal friends of mine (not in the christian way, either)

bringing someone who was not even involved (ie, me) with the discussion into things was highly unnecessary, as this is supposed to be a conversation about the no confidence motion against shama, not about the conduct of previous bar staff. (which actually wasn't that bad). also i don't actually remember anyone getting fired from the bar recently... there was an incident last year, but that was before any of this happened and the people involved probably don't even know the live website is here. spoke to one of them earlier actually, he's doing fine. nice to know isn't it.

many of the old bar staff left because they did not like the new management, or were loyal to the old management, because we were all friends there, and it was a bit rubbish what happened.

as for why i left the bar so suddenly, it was because i moved to leeds for a job at very short notice! it's going really well thanks, and i know for a fact that mick, rob and si really missed me after i left. as for the skiffs, yes, i have thrown skiffs at people before (my friends, who were being rude to me, and it was in jest, and we all know it and laugh about it... because we have a sense of humour!!!!!) and there was an incident where i had had enough of sabbs being rude to me, and i got a very curt "we want glasses, not skiffs" when serving them a beer. so i chucked them on the floor because i received not so much as a please or thankyou, or an "i'm sorry we didn't ask before you started pouring the beer" and it made me a bit cross. and you know, it's a bit rude to say i thought it was my bar. it's all of our bar, every student of imperial college owns a little bit of it. it was just my job to make sure you werent all f**king stupid about it and drink too much, be rude to the staff, demand free drinks... etc etc. if you guys knew how much s**t we had to put up with behind that bar, and how much we covered the asses of the people upstairs at times, you would not have acted like you did towards us. also, is it any wonder we didn't really like the people who openly said they didn't want to pay us more than minimum wage?!

on which note, i have my suspicions who you are, engineer, and so i would sleep with one eye open if i were you...

Jan 17 2007 16:16

S*it dude, what exactly did jesus do to p*ss you off so much?! lol!! :D

Jan 17 2007 18:21

I loved the statement that the bars have improved. That just goes to show how narrow minded you are! For the more observant amoung you, you may have noticed that the person failing to do his job was completely unaffected by the union restructuring while the rest were treated worse than something someone stepped in.

As for Kirsty, the fact that Si suggested you get some work experience before you applied shows two things:

1 He didnt fancy you

2 He didnt want you to apply because he thought you would be c**p but Mick was so lovely he would employ anyone.

I do not want to even start on the two they call john.

68. Lost   
Jan 17 2007 21:17

How exactly did an article on the DPGS turn into another rant by ex-bar staff?

There is a world of difference between taking a very hard decision that they genuinely believed to be in the best interests of the Union as a whole but with which some people/constituencies inevitably disagree, and an alleged lack of effort to change or do anything. Whichever you think is worse in this case, having done the former certainly doesn't make it hypocritical to object to the latter.

How about moving the discussion to somewhere vagualy relevant, a first suggestion being here , and let's get this one back to the matter in hand.

69. Censor   
Jan 17 2007 21:20

Are we allowed to discuss the matter in hand? Or will that breach the DPGS's "human rights" to unaccountability and an easy life?

Jan 17 2007 23:03

I love this thread so much.

Jan 18 2007 03:55

I know you do... so do most people I've spoken to. It's hilarious.

Phil (the) Power wants to know if people slagging me off is against SSP but unfortunately I am only temporary staff so I don't have that luxury... never mind I will just continue to subject myself to random abuse from strangers =D.

I can't remember what the original thread was. Or how we got here.

On an aside, my first shift back at the Union under the new Managers and with the new staff was amazing! Everyone is extremely friendly, open to all suggestions (I got the bar prices put on the chalk boards for you Mary) and a great laugh. Cleaning was a hell of a lot easier (and more thorough in my opinion) because we worked excellently as a team. And there was a lot less bitchyness or any feeling of inferiority. Exactly the utopia of working in the union bar that was previously described. Oh and we got lots of tips (we're thinking about sponsoring a child in Africa or buying a lot of biscuits) - and noone spat in our faces... I don't want to imply anything by that so I will let people make their own assumptions as to whether the bar has improved.

Sorry I moved the topic off relevancy again. But it does seem to be quite popular...

So good sabbatical officers... that was what we were talking about oh way back 70 odd posts ago. Seing as there isn't much point talking any more about the current sabbs (as 1. it's wearing a bit thin and 2. aside from no confidencing them theres not much anyone can do about it now) shall we talk about next years sabbs?

Lets stir things up a bit... does anyone have an opinion on who should be President next year? Any strong desires to nominate Mary or Jesus? Is it normal to not hear any rumours flying around, given that the elections are supposedly some time this term? Will anyone stand at all?

72. mary   
Jan 18 2007 09:16

This post has been edited, as it directly criticised the performance of a member of (student) staff. There is no evidence that this contributor witnessed the events they criticised.

dont try and make out that the sabbs are responsible for a good bar. i have every confidence that the bar will get better over time. and the bar staff will be just as good if not better than the old ones. but at the moment its not quite that way just yet now is it?

Jan 18 2007 10:24

I was commenting on the improvement of the atmosphere behind the bar. I assume you wouldn't know anything about this as you don't work there anymore. I would love to know what criticisms you have of (student) staff that caused your post to be edited. :D I wonder who?

Discussing improvements with sabbs during my break last night led to immediate changes behind the bar. (ie. the prices going back on the chalk boards) I think this was an excellent idea, so thankyou for suggesting it. I didn't suggest that the sabbs made a good bar... unfortunately the topic wandered far far far away from sabbs. However thay can make life easier. The staff can then do the rest.

And I did attempt to bring this discussion back on topic. Crikey - this is worse than the choir forum for going at a complete tangent!

So sabbs, no confidences, elections anyone?

Jan 18 2007 10:30

Prices back on the boards was my suggestion :p

Jan 18 2007 10:50

dear editor, if you are going to edit posts that directly criticise members of staff i suggest you also edit engineer's post about "a certain member of staff" way up there. i think it is grounds for libel action against engineer, especially since i know who he is. thanks.

Jan 18 2007 10:59

Sorry Ashley, I realised that just now when I was rereading posts... sorry the thread is so long I forgot who posted what. Still a good suggestion though. :D

Jan 18 2007 11:04

If said member of criticsed staff were to enquire as to what it was they were criticised about would the editor be able to tell them.


78. Editor   
Jan 18 2007 11:14

That post did not mention the person by name. You later assumed it was referring to you and have admitted you no longer work behind the bar. As an ex-member of staff people are entitled to express their opinion of you - you also responded to defend yourself, admitting that you'd thrown skiffs around, which was one of the accusations made at you.

I don't find threats particularly appealing either: "i would sleep with one eye open if i were you...". However I am not here to stop people being sued personally, just to uphold the rules Live! operates under.

I wouldn't make any assumptions about the real identities behind pseudonyms used on Live! - some people use more than one, some are used by more than one person.

Jan 18 2007 12:03

Mary, could I suggest that Sabbs have a huge input into staffing and the hiring of new staff/management restructure etc. Hence sabbs certainly do have something to do with changes beind the bar. Whether its improvements or harm is in a large part opinion, but sabbs could certainly have an *influence* on a good bar

Jan 18 2007 14:13

So Jess - who is this "engineer"?

Jan 18 2007 15:05

I'm engineer...

82. mary   
Jan 18 2007 16:11

ok ok ok so the thread went a bit OTT. i'm a lady and i'll admit that.

but the point still remains.... jon matthews is arrogant and rude. that is my opinion and a lot of other people agree with that.

now he may have been pleasant to you, but he's been down right obnoxious to a lot of other people. whats shocking is he is allowed to get away with it.

yeah people are rude in everyday life. but you dont need a sabb running around like he is the only person important. he should be doing a service for the students (or has he forgotten).

so if you want to leave the bar out of it. fair enough. it will improve. i have no doubt that it will. it will be equally as good if not better in time. IN TIME.

instead let us focus on the allegation that jon matthew's hacked into the DPGS email account. whats that about? anyone have any info about that? and is it right for him to be hold a subwardening position in fisher halls and paying his mortgage off. what are the facts on that? is it true that the DPGS rejected him and now he angry at her? maybe the no confidence is just as personally motivated as all the messages on this thread?

once again, top banter people!

Jan 18 2007 19:43

so he is living free of charge in halls but getting a living allowance to do so.

it also says that the clubs and societies budgets cut? what the?!?!

Jan 18 2007 20:39

I'm pretty sure C&S budgets didn't go down last year.

Jan 18 2007 22:17

Right, ok

C&S budgets did NOT go down last year. A few places were cut, others went up

DPFS often requires a degree of ruthlesnessness, though of course Sameena was a cheery little chapette

Any official Union account is open to being checked, for example the sabbs can check my scc account. However, there is an issue with Shama's personal and professional accounts being linked, if Jon was allowed to check an equal's account, and when he did it.

I must admit that if I was to send an email from my SCC account saying "yeah, i hate all the christian societies and am going to zero fund" I'd feel embarraed if someone found it, but wouldn't expect any consequences against me

87. Alex   
Jan 18 2007 23:33

Well, my manifesto for SCC Secretary this year was "I have no strong religious or political views, and will treat them all with equal disdain."

Quite seriously, I have no problem with people holding some prejudices - we're all only human - so long as they're declared up front, and they don't excessively hinder getting a job done.

Jan 19 2007 03:18

Mary, i may be under the influence of a couple (or dozen) of Belushi's finest, but your problem with Jon Matthews may be, that like me, he does not suffer fools gladly, which is why he appears rude and arrogant. This is not a negative quality, but a very good 'bulls**t / idiot filter ' that i find suits people, including myself, very well...

Intolerance of fools is not a negative quality.

89. mary   
Jan 19 2007 10:55

i may not be drunk..... but yes that could be the case.

or that could not be the case. i'll leave that up to anyone who has met and had a negative experience with jon.

Jan 20 2007 17:10

to kirsty:

"I have never had a member of the sabbatical team speak to me rudely. I find them all perfectly amiable and see most of them everyday for some reason or another. Perhaps it is the manner with which you treat said people which means they treat you the way they do in return. Only a suggestion."

  • thats because you were sleeping with one of them

"Mary, sorry if I insulted old bar staff, it was not the intention."

  • are you demented, the bar staff right now doesnt even know what a snakebite is.

grow up you cow

Jan 20 2007 17:47

Hey hey calm down jesusbro! You're not doing yourself or your argument any favours by calling Kirsty names, whatever you might think of her personally!

92. Ben   
Jan 21 2007 03:21

Dear Jess,

(and yes I do know that Jesus etc are Jess for two reasons - (a) they use the same uniques un-capitlaised style and (b) they are posting from the same IP address)

I'd love to know why any relationship I had with Kirsty has to do with anything about either Shama's no confidence or the Union bars. Is it not possible for you to grow up over this. Really? Please? And see - I didn't have to resort to calling you a cow (it's called being an adult).

Jan 21 2007 05:30

I seem to remember being told that only Live! execs had access to the IPs of posts, wonder how you got hold of them...

Jan 21 2007 09:34

There are two ways to get IPs for posts:

  • ask the editor (which will be released if disciplinary procedures involve the posts)
  • look at the web server logs

Only two people (myself and a moderator) can do the first. Quite a few people can do the second.

Jan 21 2007 12:14

Mooo... teehee...

I don't understand how members of bar staff not knowing what a snakebite is constitutes me insulting the old bar staff. I know what a snakebite is. And so did every other person I worked with last week. The only new thing was the insane popularity of Snakebite and Lime which Rosie made up as a joke... we even suggested it was updated on the EPOS system. And I have even less of a clue about what snakebite and lime has to do with a no confidence. Or how me going out with Ben would have had anything to do with how polite another sabbatical is to me. And yes I know I should probably let this drop but people keep adressing me directly - I can't help it!

96. Jon   
Jan 21 2007 12:16

I particularly like using the excuse about being in meetings all day for not actually accomplishing anything, if that was the case my job would be a hell of a lot easier as I wouldn't have to do anything...

I can only hope, that if the entire management of the union bars has been replaced that the new staff learn how to serve two people at once.

Jan 21 2007 12:22

Oh and I forgot to mention how I thought it was absolutely excellent that the sabbs gave up their Saturday night to serve behind the bar at the Part Time Staff Christmas Party (which bizarrely was in January). Well done guys you were ace!

Jan 21 2007 12:41

Has anyone else notice how much Jesus/Mary/Jess (ooh look three in one - the trinity - maybe she should start using God next) has contradicted herself?

"i would no confidence the lot of them if i were given half a chance, which i will not be."

followed shortly by:

"unfortunately i have more important things to do than no confidence sabbatical officers. there are lepers to be cured. but thanks for the invite."

And a little later:

"oh dear, it seems that this discussion has now resorted to the words "grow up""

followed by:

"grow up you cow"

I also find it interesting that the two comments you quoted me on which were followed by "grow up you cow" seemed neither offensive nor immature. In which case maybe your apparent grudge against me has nothing to do with this discussion. What exactly have I done to provoke you so?

Jan 21 2007 18:56

this is better than eastenders! please don't stop...

there's so much i want to say but to be honest, i'm not sure what the point is anymore.

oh, and from what i hear the staff party was not the first time that the sabbaticals 'helped out' behind the bar.... hear they had to have a go when the "oh-so-dispensable" previous staff left in december. well, it made me laugh anyway.

ps. given that this all started out on a completely different topic, and has had 98 replies, mostly about the bars/commercial services disaster (ooops, i mean 'restructuring', of course)... it just adds to me being completely baffled at there being no mention of any of it in felix. how very very odd

Jan 21 2007 20:11

I don't think that's necessarily because Felix isn't interested - quite the opposite I imagine - I think it's more because Felix isn't allowed to print it. Staffing changes and all this bumph is covered by staff student protocol. Which given the weight of the overhaul was all organised shockingly badly in my opinion. Precisely because so many people weren't allowed to have an opinion. (I don't know where the decision was made and I don't know whether I am even allowed to say this). However I think the people in charge have realised that they handled it badly and positive changes have been made. I know this is all too late for the 'old' staff but I am taking the current attitude of collecting feedback and acting on suggestions from staff as a sort of apology. Which is probably as much as anyone is going to get.

101. taz   
Jan 21 2007 20:24

yep i know felix are interested and i know about student staff protocol. thanks

102. jess   
Jan 21 2007 21:47

"sleep with one eye open" = not a threat, just a suggestion

"same ip" = have you considered 2 people using same computer, no, well then, perhaps you should have done

"called kirsty a cow" no i didn't, i try not to resort to name-calling. someone else did that. sorry to disappoint you.

thanks for the fun laughs guys it's been wicked

103. insider   
Jan 21 2007 22:38

Felix was kinda half interested, the editor has told many people that with SSP banning him from writing anything (or even the truth) that any article would be a bit poo.

On another note, a charming guy called Dave (I forget his last name..... lets just call him Davie for now) actually wanted to write a fair an unbiased article about what happened. But when John Collins got wind of it, allegedly he went up to guy and told him he wasnt allowed.

Now you could say he was acting withing the frame work of what is mandated in SSP. But actually stopping a fair, unbiased account of what happened has nothing to do with SSP. In fact it is called censorship. You have to wonder why he would go to such great lengths to stop it being written.

On another point, Felix isn't really a free newspaper as long as SSP exists. When the editor is too scared to write anything about what has happened. Or when a sabb tells a journalist what to write and what not to right. Freedom my ass.

Jan 21 2007 22:51

Oh my what a delightful bitching session.

My understanding of SSP is that it only applies to present staff. SSP is there to protect current staff from suing for constructive dismissal if they are effectively hounded out of a job by Felix or Live. Once they have left (or are referring to people who have left) SSP will no longer apply so please get in touch if you have anything you would like to get off your chest.

Besides, thanks to HR law, if anyone complains about what we print its not like Council could actually fire Andy.

105. Ben   
Jan 21 2007 23:22

Just out of interest, does the PCC have any power over Felix or Live!?

Jan 21 2007 23:42

Good point, Steve.

However, the SSP pretty much gags me on that whole issue of the bar.

I know everything that happened, and I've wanted to write about it for a while, but there's so little I can do that the story would be completely meaningless to the rest of the student body.

And "insider" is pretty much right about what happened to Dave, though he wasn't warned off, just made to feel unwelcome (and a little afraid).

Jan 22 2007 00:12

I don't see why we are not covered by the PCC. There code is to be found here and seems quite sensible.

I would add however that the PCC dosen't really have "power" over anyone. If you read their website their greatest sanction is for the publication in question to print their criticisms but most of the time things seem to be rectified with a correction, apology or even an appropriate reply.

Jan 22 2007 00:13


109. jess   
Jan 22 2007 00:37

andy, the live editor here seems to think that it is fine to talk about staff once they have left. i would imagine that this applies to felix too...

although in my experience the union peeps often have some funny ideas about what is "allowed" and what is "not allowed"

110. Jan Itor   
Jan 22 2007 01:59

So why haven't I seen anything printed in Felix about the staff being sacked.... sorry, taken voluntary redundancy..... if council "couldn't actually fire Andy".

It seems to be a big bone of contention to many of the students. Surely an article in Felix explaining the situtation if nothing else would have made good reading.

Wasted opportunity there, oh well keep up the good work with the page 3 "stunners". A marvelous idea! I can't believe no one else did that before....... oh wait.

111. andy   
Jan 22 2007 02:12

You can talk about staff when they've left.

That's not the problem, though. The problem would be staff that haven't left, and they're untouchable.

Nice cheap shot, Jan Itor.

112. Jan Itor   
Jan 22 2007 02:39

I didn't say anything about touching the staff that hadn't left. I don't agree with molestation.

I was talking about simply writing what has happened and why I haven't seen anything in Felix.

Why thank you, I thought the cheap shot was in keeping with this threads tone and the bitching between Kirsty and everyone else. I figured you deserved some too, even if just a little >_<

Jan 22 2007 13:06

Maybe you can bring Rupert back for a week, he'd have published this story on the front page in no time.

114. jess   
Jan 22 2007 23:34

quick, make fun of his hair!!!!!!!!!

andy, i am sure there are ways of telling the story without directly involving the names/positions of permanent staff members

Jan 23 2007 04:02

Sorry if I bitched. I tried very hard not to. I even tried to be humourous. At least I didn't resort to swearing or name calling.

Jan 23 2007 04:39

I heard the reason all the stuff happened in the bars is because nobody drinks any longer. Students work far too hard and are far too poor to possibly consider drinking.

In addition some clever bugger in bioengineering figured out how to alter bone marrow so it produces alcohol (a fine St Emilion I believe) thus negating the need to go to any bar ever again.


117. andy   
Jan 23 2007 13:48

We're doing something this week.

118. sceptic   
Jan 23 2007 20:23

after that can we have an end to this all?

119. jess   
Jan 24 2007 02:26

if you look under your seat there's a big red button, press it and that should sort you out ;)

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.

See Also

Live! Poll

How frequently would you like to see a CGCU magazine being published