Why is ICU supporting the military recruitment?

It is not military recruitment. The three student military organisations aim to give members valuable leadership training and life skills, they are not military recruitment organisations. The motion passed by ICU supports the student organisations recruiting.

Some IC students support military recruitment, as scientists and engineers a lot of us will/have benifited from defence funding.

ICU have not supported military recruitment, we are supporting the the student military organisations, which have no call-up obligation for members either during or after a degree. They are great organisations to be a part of and this was reflected by the amount of seconders on the paper brought to ICU council and the fact that everybody in the room seemed to support the paper fully.

Is it the union's business to even contemplate the banning of such employers - what next? Stopping recruitment events by banks? The military shouldn't be snubbed due to short sighted blame by pseudo-liberal facists who can't see that politicians are to blame for the irrational bad reputation of service men and women.

It is no secret that ULU has been Dysfunctional for years - 10 would be fair? Certain public blogs by past Sabbs indicate it was a most horrendous part of their lives. There were breakdowns and resignations galore. Huseman is an International student who chose to interrupt studies, stepped in at a most publicised volatile time for ULU and inherited very aged and deep rooted issues. She had everything to lose and nothing to gain to attempt to serve the student body to the best of her ability and keep true to her manifesto. What was her incentive to take this position in another country and devote time, personal funds and a year lost in her education if not true commitment. McAlister's posting was full of non-supported, vindictive and malicious ALLEGATIONS. Immature graffiti that was entirely subjective and self-serving. I don't know one highly visible and service oriented post that does NOT have a breakdown in communications. It goes with the territory. Buck up and resolve it. He obviously bit off more than he could chew and decided to throw in the towel and go out in a blaze of, his own word, hatred. It is so embarassng and sad to see that his vindictive intent is winning over reason and fairness. It seems very odd that the severity of his allegations escalated in a relatively short period of time. Perhaps ULU got to him and Huseman was a convenient face-saving scapegoat? That type of e-mail is planted and broadcast for one purpose, to evoke sympathy and to destory another person. It has no merit, no valor, but very real intent. Huseman is listed a Disabled Student...has anyone considered that her illnesses of late could be attributed to that very fact? A disability does not have to be visible to exist. Would you judge or write about a disabled person that needed a bit of leave for a needed operation, someone that had pneumonia or another illness and was directed by their GP to recoup? Is it now a shameful stigma to look after your health in England so that you can heal, return 100% and be more effective? What is this on about? This is a very embarassing witch hunt and a VERY POOR example to any student considering service to their respective Unions. This is the antithesis of what ULU purports to stand for. It reeks intolerance and posturing full of personal agendas. After all, who is still at their post? Who is still there toughing it out on foregn soil? This Huseman must be a very strong person to continually stave off the jackals. It would be one very sad day if she retreats for survival.

All of your very eloquent spiel doesn't change the fact that she is refusing to write and sign the letter she has been manadated to complete. If she doesn't feel that she is able to represent the students she was elected by, then she should resign immidiately; disabled, absent or otherwise. We might also well just employ a clown to run ULU...it'd be a damn sight more efficient.

What's the matter with ULASH? :D

Rose... can you sum up what you have written in one sentence - i'm very tired and dont think i can tackle reading that.

Mr. Conquerer: The more I read and research this issue the more concerned we should all become with the spor it is spewing and the platform on which it is shakily built. I have become fascinated with the momentum this has taken on after the dreaded Ashley debacle and can only get a rather disturbing mental picture of lots of canines running loose with huge bones labeled "Fun!!! - We've found our Witch" - Don't Give Up the Bone!!!

It is an excellent example of human nature and the frenzy syndrome with, of course, a human beings very future at stake now that this is so cavalierly all over the Internet with NO evidence of actual wrongdoing. Ramifications for future employment not to mention a skewed and one-sided declaration of this person's very nature and dependibility. Granted, she made the choice to run for a highly visible position and should expect scrutiny as any political representative...but there is still no evidence here of poor performance or wrongdoing. Oops, shame on me I forgot one real fact in this..she did get ill. This is NOT permitted under the terms of the position. :( And if that happens, she is held accountable and must provide every private detail of that disability or illness to the satisfaction of ????.

I have done a bit of quick but intense research on my own which is quite public and easily accessed via websites and a few local calls concering Huseman's "Performance and Commitment" - including but not limited to :

Environmental and Ethical Officer in 2005-2006 Goldsmiths whilst still a fulltime student. Apparently during that term, Goldsmiths received Awards of Excellence in this regard. Looks like Huseman also was very visible in that same term in the the organisation of several fundraisers for community initiatives, one in particular that addressed violence against women with proceeds going to Operation for Women?s Freedom in Iraq and a local women's shelter. Also attended a Women's Conference in Belgium relevant to the same initiative. Awarded BA through Goldsmiths Anthropology Department with Honours that same term.

Subsequently elected to President of Goldsmith's Student Union and along with other duties, convinced the College to establish a substantial Hardship Fund for student parents and a commitment for a new nursery as well as heading up the re-drafting of the Constitution to align it with the 2006 Charities Act.

This particular term at ULU, before she was so blatantly selfish to manifest an illness in the second half, the President worked diligently it would seem with the Mayor's Office to acquire less expensive travel for students through a TFL Campaign whist still attending the perfunctory and required meetings receiving students continual correspondence and contact and dealing with a non-supportive sabb team- all with a disability as well. Hmmmmm sounds like a real slacker so far.

I am not inferring that other Sabbs in all unions may have not done more ...or less for that matter - but your "newsflash" intones that this woman is a total failure since she could not correct and turn around in HALF a term several years of ULU's mounting problems. One's success in this environment cannot be accomplished single handed..in such a large and seemingly failing institution well before her term, one can only rely on the strength of the organisaton and the cooperation, support and flexibility of her mentors, team and staff.

I'd like to address....

"The last meeting of ICU Council passed a motion to express support for URNU, ULAS and OTC following the effective banning of the organisations at some University of London Colleges.

The organisations are currently being singled out for abuse by "Stop the War" groups at UCL, LSE and Goldsmiths. The paper stated the main aims of these organisations and tasked ULU with continually supporting them. The motion also mandates the ULU president to write letters persuading UL colleges who have banned recruitment by these organisations to rethink their policies."

Huseman's manifesto clearly stated support of Stop the War Movement. Was she not elected (will of the students) based on attributes of Manifesto with the assumption she, in best effort, would adhere to the content? According to the above, other students through other UL colleges have chosen to be part of Stop the War initiative and ban recruitment. So ICU, one College Union among many under UL, passes a motion objected to by the President of ULU (is the President not permitted to object? not sure on this one) whilst others who voted for her are looking to her to sustain that position and enact their will also. Is this a "Catch 22" or simply an impossible Motion/situation? To what students or student group, then, does the President owe complicity? New Cup New Cup, Move Down Move Down (Alice in Wonderland - Mad Hatters Tea Party) If I am mis-reading something here, please correct me. If that is so, then this article does not clearly present the case.

The above article then degenerates and actually admits that the Motion meeting bacame a makeshift trial around Huseman's illness, justification of her commitment and performance during that illness, and explaining why one of the Sabbs posted an inflammatory e-mail whilst, in the spirit of a deserved Nursery Rhyme, he then went wha wha wha all the way home....

So now that we've got that straight. since we are all hellbent on "factual", "fair", and "humane" behavior, Do tell.. did this meeting (trial) also motion on the method of choice? The Stake with plenty of "fuel for the fire", beheading since proven intelligence is such an intimidation to some people, or the Tower where Presidents can keeptheir convictions to themselves?..We all want to know.... I think this would make an excellent film.... Cheers

To: tired. Apologies, but no can do. Then so should Mr. Conqerer and all the other "hunters" - Fair play and all that - but thanks for the comment....

It seems to me that the Huseman was probably elected by virtually nobody except her friends at Goldsmiths. ULU elections are always poorly advertised - what was the turnout?

You've listed lots of interesting things at Goldsmiths, but nothing at all that she's done in her first term. She hasn't achieved extra travel discounts, nor did she start the campaign for them: that was started at least as early as last year.

She's not expected to turn the dying organisation round, but is expected to keep it above water - the last few years have seen lots of movement towards reform in an effort to save it.

You also seem to be criticising the article, which as far as I can see reports facts and what people have said, except for the very last paragraph. And that seems to only interpret what's been said by other people.

Maybe you're touchy for a reason - you aren't really called Jennifer are you?

To: Engineer: Your first sentence is pure assumption and I canot answer your question about turnout but I am sure those statistics can be gotten from ULU.

I did not say that she achieved the discounts. I did say she was working to acquire them nor did I insinuate she initiated the campaign.

No one person can keep a dying organisation above water or save it. It takes teamwork. No one person can be blamed for the final demise of an entire sick organisation, even if they make mistakes.

One should not "interpret" hearsay by other people especially if the interpretation could be derogatory to another.

Your last remark only proves my "frenzy" theory. It insinuates that this person is not deserved of support by another independent analytical viewpoint.

No I am not called Jennifer. I do not presume to speak for her. It is her responsibility to respond by whatever medium she chooses... or not. This may be none of my affair and Huseman may not appreciate my drawing added attention to her personal issue.

I apologise if I've been too presumptuous in this regard.

I am an elder seasoned alumnus who has returned to academia part time to pursue a second degree. Perhaps by my massive postings, you may be able to guess in what Programme :) I enjoy a part time job in a local College to aide with expenses. I try to keep on with the "news" and in doing a web search for ULU for general information on an essay, the second listing was McAlister's resignation posting. Although the form was good, I was concerned by the content and use of "hatred", "aggression", etc which are quite serious charges in the workplace. I had never seen anything quite like this during my years of study. I found more derogatory postings and blogs and was compelled to read on, research and post my view without alteration. This will be my last post as I feel I am also being drawn into the frenzy and have missed two nights of dissertation work. I should only use the library :) I can almost hear a "hurrah" out there. All the Best to the students and staff and if the President happens to read these postings, I apologise if I may have overstepped with my opinons. Be Strong, Be Well and try to rise above this if you can manage to do so - it will pass. Signing off.....Rose

Rose, it's very simple: If she won't do the job she's supposed to do, then she shouldn't be in this position.

Maybe she should have tried a bit harder to avoid this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article3152905.ece.

Why would the university throw money at an organisation headed by someone who has pledged to waste it on Stop the War in her manifesto?

Sprinkles: If it were that "simple" I daresay that we should be pointing the finger at half the world and at times, our own employers and ourselves.

igotnomoney - love the name :) I wish I'd thought of it....The Manifesto I read stated that she would work comprehensively with the anti war movement. I don't believe that would infer any funding of same. Please take into account that any President of ULU or any union at all represents their voters in that they must do daily battle with the institution that holds all the purse strings for a massive list of needs and wants - not a walk in the park...why in heaven's name do we think there are so many strikes in hundreds of organisations on a local and global level when union representatives have exhausted all means of negotiation? And if I am correct, any Student Union Sabbatical has only one short year to hopefully accomplish not only what they've set out to do, but cure aged and inherited issues. My Mum, rest her soul, used to say "Walk in their shoes first"...

Thank you for your comments and questions - but I really must bow out of this as I do not wish to seem an interference at this point. All the Best.

Yeah you should get back to work and stop leaving the sabbs to do it all

:|

I am in fact at this moment, despite being on medical leave, drafting and forwarded the letters I was mandated to write to the above mentioned organizations. I have also, in fact, spent most of my first term working on the TFL campaign - which is now a major issue on quite a few of the mayoral candidates manifestos - as well as on the issue of keeping student representation within the new UL governance model. As it stands now we are being completely shut out, and due to the hard work that I and College officers have done since July, we now have won the support of at least 7 College governing bodies for our position on the matter.

Additionally, I sit on almost every UL committee and have spent a good deal of my time last term was trying to negotiate and minimize the damage to ULU from the Heads of College Review Group report, and various other papers circulating through the committee systems.

I was also involved, along with our College officers, with the London wide Rise Against Racism campaign last term and helped prepare for the launch which was held in our building. Stonewall also held their launch at ULU again this year, and I was involved with the planning process for that and with writing our contribution to their guide.

Two of our colleges are also now involved in travel planning research with TFL based on my recommendations. They are currently receiving free consultation from a firm regarding the promotion of the best means of travel for their students to both improve their university experience, and to minimize carbon emissions.

Any allegations that I've spent ANY money on Stop the War this year are preposterous. Due to the amount of internally focused work I've had, and rightfully so, I've not had much time or resources to engage in wider political issues as of late.

As far as 'being elected by my friends at Goldsmiths', Goldsmiths could not vote in last years elections due to data protection issues. I believe you will find that only 15 Goldsmiths students managed to vote by signing up via paper registration. And yes, those 15 may have been my friends! ULU had the highest election turnout last year since we introduced cross campus ballot (previously Sabbs were elected by ULU Council). I'm not sure of the figures yet this year, but hopefully we've managed to improve again in the recent elections.

I am living with quite a severe disability on top of all of this, and have never asked for any sympathy. All I ask is that my situation is respected in line with all legislation around disabled people in the work place, and in line with what Student Unions are supposed to stand for - which is open access and equal opportunities. If anyone wishes to discuss the above mentioned work I've done, or any other work not mentioned, please feel free to contact me by email. As I said, I am currently on disability leave but am always contactable by email and telephone. When I am recovered I would also be open to meeting with any student in person who has questions.

Thanks.

Jennifer Huseman

Thanks Jennifer, that's an excellent response and its good to hear your point of view.

No problem Ashley. And thanks to Rose for your support in the posts above. It was not in fact me who wrote them (as I believe someone said). Whoever you are, it is much appreciated.

Best wishes,

Jennifer

Looks like the UCLU ban, enacted on Wednesday, has attracted national attention in light of the recent reports of abuse against servicemen wearing uniforms:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=527848&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

I think it's horrible that a student union can treat their own students like this. Whatever your opinion is on war (and the ones going on at the moment) are, the armed forces are essential to any country. Maybe in some magical pixie land where everyone loves each other it'd be fine to ban recruitment and have no armies, people could have flowers in their hair and all live in VW camper vans, but last time I checked, that wasn't this planet.

Service men don't have a choice if they are sent to war by politicians, you join the army and do what you're told. Perhaps societies such as the 'Young Labour' etc should be banned from freshers fairs?

And anyone accusing me of being a daily mail reader, you can sod off because I can't stand that rag.

Hear Hear Sick!

...that is all I wanted to say really...

I guess I'm a bit confounded..don't know enough about the orgs, this issue and their presence within London but not on campuses....My questions would be:

Are they being banned from "visting" campuses for recruitment or banned from "having offices" on campus for recruitment? Are these orgs primary aim to be physically on campus with office space and do they pay "space fees" for the areas they occupy (if that is the case)? So it is also a matter of income to the college?

Are the actual training programmes held on college grounds and part of college curriculum?

Are any offices/facilities for training off campus but within range of the Colleges? If they do maintain offices/facilities off campus and students inclined towards this type of training are made aware of their existence through postings, information, pamphlets, "recruitment days" etc, could the students participate off campus? Or is that not viable? Apologies for lack of knowledge in this .. just trying to understand based on the article.

Bravo President Huseman!

I am over the moon with your straightforward, dignified, and succinct statement.

Sounds like you are trying famously to accept and manage your disability with all that you have and are trying to accomplish whilst the more difficult task is managing the possible discrimination and intolerance of the prats who are fortunate enough to walk free of such things.

I apologise if my poking about caused you further need to explain yourself to those with little life experience and less character.

Be well. Carry on with what is truly priority and please do try to rise above this rubbish.

Al the Best

Rose

These organisations are completely off campus affairs as far as I'm aware. The issue is basically that some unions are not allowing these organisations to buy space at Freshers' Fairs and not allowing any advertising that would normally be offered to external organisations.

It's rather unfair that students are being denied access to organisations that offer a lot of valuable experience with no requirement for a future military career. I think it is rather condescending of STW to campaign against recruitment by these organisations. Let people make their own choices. You can't really say you've won an argument against the use of the military by denying people access to organisations that give people experience of what it is like. Campaigns should be focused on the goverment. They are the ones that decided to take us to war on dubious grounds.

I do hope that Jennifer will do what she has been mandated to do. The current situation is just a bit ridiculous.

@ sick

"Maybe in some magical pixie land where everyone loves each other it'd be fine to ban recruitment and have no armies..."

'fraid it's already true and on this planet;

You really _should_ check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

love and peace, man

They don't have their own armed forces, mainly because they're too small to, but they have agreements with other countries that will step if they need defending.

So yes, they don't have their own armies but they do have armies.

@Ryan: Cheers

I?m on neutral ground with this issue.

This volatile faction has been in existence for decades. No lasting solution to date.

From Jennifer?s statement above it appears she is resolved and in fact honouring the mandate and the ?will of the students?, or ?majority?, in this case, albeit with objection (democratic right) at Senate.

Wondering if there is a proper plan or study in place to measure the value of the above motion proposed by Birkbeck and ICU. As in ..current number of London College students enrolled in the military programmes vs. a re-count within a reasonable and logical time span (quarterly, yearly?) following the motion? The numbers could affirm or negate the mandate?s strategy.

(I could be totally off with the feasibility of this task.) Mayhaps surveys to London College students to learn how the motion affected their ability to comfortably participate in the recruitment process? Should be able to validate the merit of the motion.

Will ULU still be able to genuinely claim support, recognition and the capacity to work with the Colleges/SU?s endorsing anti war groups/students?

According to this article, the motion mandates the ULU president to "write letters persuading UL colleges who have banned recruitment by these organisations to rethink their policies.? Magical negotiation skills through a letter, of all forms to convince students/colleges sustaining grassroots ideology to suddenly change their policies?

Not understadning the efficacy/purpose. Who decides content? Who is held accountable if the "magical" letters do not produce the desired effect? Based on the publicised fact that they are being mandated by a contesting element, how useful can they possibly be? Unless there was another facet to the meeting not published here, these would appear to be pretentious gestures at best. Poor negotiation method to instigate cooperation. I'm confounded by the logic of this.

The irony of it all, as I see it, is that the College that supported and published the motion attempts to shoot itself in the a**e by disparaging via this, their own Student News website, the very credibility of the institution (?Dysfunctional ULU?) and President they are mandating to carry out the mandate and mandated letters? :{

Absolutely mad.

No question that equal opportunity be afforded any legitimate organization to present and advertise their value and programmes if the majority of stakeholders at the location agree to and want their presence and materials

Not convinced this motion and mandates were sensibly or strategically thought and carried out for positive results with the aim of a conciliatory relationship with all Colleges and SU?s under ULU.

You seem to be missing the point of free press here... perhaps you would be happier visiting the Imperial Student Propagander website?

Would you like Live! to only write nice things about ULU?

(sigh) Is there anyone out there who is not comfortably numb or blinkered? Has not a rat's a**e to do with free press. (sigh)

"The irony of it all, as I see it, is that the College that supported and published the motion attempts to shoot itself in the a**e by disparaging via this, their own Student News website, the very credibility of the institution"

I think Hmmm was referring to your above comment which has everything to do with free press.

Can I take a wild guess that you are not an Imperial Student? You don't seem intelligent enough.

I just want to point 1 thing out to these people that think it is ok to discriminate against anyone in uniform for a war they think is unjust....... At the end of the day the people in uniform did not issue the order to go to war the politicians did, so do you not think it is correct to ban all political organisations from these occasions, as they are the ones instead of the military ones, as i am afraid all they have done is follow orders not issue them.

@ 31

(sigh) yet another blinkered child?..how dull.

Your wild guess would be incorrect.

Of course , I did miss the course on:

?How to Reason Like a Neanderthal and Still Remain an Upper Class Twit?. Did well in that course, dijja?

I?m feeling quite generous today, so I?ll re-interpret that ONE particular opine we?re all cheesed off about as it may relate to the nightmarish fears that free press is being so blatantly challenged ?..oh bother?

Let?s all try it through a ?skit? analogy.. Simple for simple people?have a bit of fun?

Scene: As written and presented through various and sundry London College SU webs and rags of late. Most particularly this ?article? and the very frightening Chris Mullan:

drumroll....

Curtain opens: Escalating concerns around certain SU?s disallowing military recruiting organisations to recruit and advertise via Union venues.

ICU passes a motion Council 18th February 2008

Motion to Support Student Military Organisations recruiting at Imperial College ICU Council passed a motion for their own Union. Bravo. Well Done. Easy Peasy.

After a proper p***up, ICU, Birkbeck and Royal Holloway blokes (hereinafter referred to as the ?BrownsBoyz?) are out nutting and decide it would be brill to present the same exact motion in the next ULU Senate. ?F**k all, mates, we need to get Mumsy ULU in this. We could be heroes? They were secretly hoping for a dirty weekend. But that didn?t happen - they had no johnnys (poor boffins ) so they settled on Tippex and a biro and changed all instances of ?Imperial College Union? to ?ULU? in the motion and felt properly ready to mandate away at the next ULU Senate. And so they did.

Yeh ? but it gets better?they had the President sussed as a ?leftie nutjob?. She was even cheeky enough to be honest about it, noted an objection and stated...(oh no..not that!!!) ..yesssssss?.a dreaded cultural belief. In a public forum amongst the masses!!! God?s teeth! Everything shambolic now.

Everyone is in a panic. Wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth. What shall we do?!!! No one?s ever questioned the mandate!! Mayhaps we should mandate the mandate and that will make the mandate more mandatable. Call in the Blue Meanies!!! That should have her put a sock in it. Jeezie Creezie. Tough Luck! Hard Lines.

Robbie: ?Wull, you?ve got to serve the will of the masses.!!for f**k?s sake. As President your personal rights are diddled. Brownie steps up eyes narrowed, teeth bared, full of beans, heh heh ( threatening through tightened lips) ?ya know, your position could be untenable here ?.yessssss? untenable if your don?t get us the mandated letters.

We don?t give a s**te about your beliefs. Sign the papers or you?ll have to leg it.? Pres is gutted.

Everyone feeling hunky-dory now. The mandate s**te has become dull. The masses needed more?

?By the by, what?s this about being absent from Malet Street? A disability? What disability. I can?t see a disability. Tell us, yes do tell us..just what is this disability. We all have to know? ?we must diddle your privacy and know all the details of your illness. Brownie loudly shouts ?Where?s a GP?call in the GP?? We need bloody proof is all?You owe the masses just one more pint?.of blood. GP enters

Brownie: We have found a leftie, may we burn her?

Senate BURN!! BUUUURN HER!

GP : But how do you *know* she is a leftie?

Brownie: She looks like one!

Other Senates: Yeah! She looks like one!!!

GP: Bring her forward.

(a young woman is pushed through the crowd of Senate to the Chair. She

is dressed all in black, has a motion paper tied around her face on top of her mouth, and a black paper hat on her head. She talks funny because her mouth is closed by a motion her conscience cannot support.)

Huseman I'm not a leftie, I'm not a leftie ? I?m a pacifist.

GP: Er,...but you are dressed as one.

Huseman THEY dressed me up like this.

Senate: No! nooo! We didn't! We didn't!

Huseman And this isn't my mouth, it's a false one because of the mandate

(GP lifts up the motion to reveal the woman's real mouth, which is in.

fact rather honestl.)

GP: Well?

One Representative : Well, we did do the mouth.

GP: The mouth?

One Rep: And the Hat. But she's a leftie

Senate: Yeah! Burn her! Burn! Burn her!

GP Did you dress her up like this?

Senate: NO! No, no, no, no, no, no...

One Rep: yes.

Senate: yes. yes. yes. A bit. yes. a bit. a bit.

Brownie (hopefully) She has got a wart..we think it could be her disability

GP: What makes you think she is a leftie?

Brownie: Well, She turned me into a gumby

(pause)

GP: a gumby

(long pause)

Brownie: I got better .almost

Intermission. Everyone gallivanting about for fags and pints.

Scene 2. Next day.

Everything?s tickety-boo. BrownsBoyz feel confident they are heroes and ULU and Pres are snookered. Mandates rule!!!! Yeh!!!

What next???

Enter BrownsBoyz: How do we tell the London masses that we bespoked this ace motion for them AND graduate to supermen by getting the lefties to ?rethink their policies? Blimey? that could make us bloody famous!!! Beeb and all. Wellllll?.Mumsy ULU is now cradling all the ?Yea? unions for military support- we want them all? we must have them all?Goldsmiths, UCL, LSE..then the world? (Maniacal laughter)

How do we convince the leftie nut jobs? Right. Gggaaaaaa ?Well aren?t we barmy? Of course!!! ULU Pres is giving us the golden letters mandating by our mandate that they should mandate their mandatees to rethink their policies. Now how do we make the entire bloody process work for us through the announcement and letters? They have to be received knowing that ULU and the Pres are serious and to be reckoned with. They are after all Mumsy ULU and the elected Pres for all the Unions. The lefties will respect that ? and the military orgs will be over the moon when they read our press and get the letters of support?.so what do we do next?

Of course!! There?s ?LIVE?!! ICU?s Web ? News and all. It all fits!!!!

Brownie: Let?s completely slag off ULU and the President TODAY through the site!! We can headline ?Dysfunctional ULU?. Brilliant!

Mumsy ULU must be getting daft by now so it would be true, wouldn?t it? Let?s be really strategical. Let?s make it very clear that ULU is operating on 2.5 sabbs. Ghhaaa. Hard lines having to see half a torso gallivanting about. I?d be honking. Yeh, since the Pres is delivering the letters, she has to have real credibility for serious acceptance and persuasion. Soooooo, let?s include the bit about the VP McQuitter and scrape words from his e-mail about Pres - like questionable ?performance and commitment? and, oh yeh, the fact that she was out almost seven entire days this term with a disability and had the bollocks to keep it private?now that?s journalism where it?s needed. Oh F**k all, let?s put it all in there and Bob?s your uncle!!!. Smashing strategy.!

BrownsBoyz have found their johnnys and are off to the local pub to do some serious chatting up. Too bad their too dim to know they?ve botched the motion for the mandate that mandates the Pres to mandate the leftie mandatees to ?re-think? their policies. After reading Live?s account of it all, they just can?t take it seriously and consider it all a daft gesture.

A fortnight later. The BrownsBoyz are finding the golden letters strewn about bins.

Curtain Closed. BrownBoyz rat a**ed ? the only thing they know how to plan well.

New ICU Sabbs are John Cleese,

Terry Gilliam

Eric Idle and

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup of MoD (really John out of his Mufti?s)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/ChiefsOfStaff/ChiefOfTheDefenceStaff.htm

Cheers

Are you drunk?

Rose/WolfatBay: your points may be better made if you put them succinctly, rather than rambling on to the point where people stop reading.

Somewhere in the ramble above I think you imply that Live! is in some way controlled by ICU and this is some great conspiracy by ICU to undermine ULU. This is not the case.

The media at Imperial is independent (in most cases). Although there have been some cases of ICU interference *preventing* Imperial's student media from publishing, they cannot force us to publish anything. This is where the point about freedom of the press comes in, that you have so comprehensively missed.

Jennifer posted a very eloquent and effective reply to the criticism that was published here. People can see both sides of the argument, which is wonderful thing about the comments and something I encourage. That is, of course, until they get clogged up by very long posts.

You claim to be an Imperial student and say we could guess which programme of study you are on by your comments. I have to say, I can't think of a single course at Imperial which encourages your style of writing, so am really intrigued - which one is it?

Not Rose, Ashley..Tried to get an alternate point across in another way and finally after some frustration with a bit of humour. Please feel free to delete the rant. I truly apologise for the intrusion and taking massive space. Did not intend to offend. So much for freedom of press/speech. My writing style is my own outside of courses.

Well, apologies if you are not, in fact, Rose. Two people from the United States posting here, to the same thread, with the same writing style and apparently from the same state seemed to identify you as the same person.

In US. Uni research. Voted in ULU elections last year. UK SU?s came up in talks with mates. Whilst following the elections online and ?sharing? process and policies here, all this s**te posted.. It?s all over webs. Now a bit of al "soap? here especially re military recruits in colleges, etc. Many ?contributions? to posts. Apologies for the rants. Last post created with mates but not meant to be posted - an inappropriate prank with an intended point. Will follow but will clear off?All the Beet to the Pres et al. Hope it sorts out.

That rant was brilliant!

I haven't read anything that made me laugh so much on here for quite a while. Get him to write a column!

Thanks. Glad everyone not po faced. Meant to say ?All the Best? to the Pres et al. Since everyone is so bloody literal on these things, some twit could bung a basket of beets at her . I?ve got a tenner riding with other mates (even a couple of Don?s) that the Pres has a lotta bottle and will carry on. I?ll lose if she puts paid to her position from all the c**p. On peanuts here ? hope I don?t c**k up.?

Cheers

This forum has just come to our attention. Ashley Brown specifically states that the above blurb points from the US. Our concern is that it could be construed by some, if desired, as having an indirect connection with Jen. U.S. is, after all, her published International residence. It was already mistakenly implied here that she was "Rose".

The careless, silly mockery by "Wolf" or whomever, does not merit Jen's character or intelligence, or the integrity of this site. Obviously created incognito, this does not help and only provokes negative attention and antagonism.

We know this is a public domain and can be surfaced through any search engine globally with a name, phrase, etc. Return dialogue can come from any number of common service providers via shared or solitary PC's at home, the workplace, VPN's or wireless mediums. The potential sources of hits and posts are endless.

Jen has the utmost respect for her position, ULU, all college members and the unique opportunity to serve the student body that elected her. As Ashley points out, the personal post says it all.

Jen is quite ill as we speak. Our main concern now is that she recover asap to continue on with the dignity and renewed strength she deserves. Thank you.