Chris posted the following on a Facebook group supporting him yesterday:

A short reply to the message sent out by the Chair of the ACS.

I will simply respond specifically to the 3 points raised:

1) Since everyone seems to be taken offence at a multitude of variations at what they have been told I have said, I have not felt the need to apologise for offence taken by people who have heard or read very twisted versions of what i have said. I think the people who should be apologising are those that are seeking to create problems and divisions where there were none, and have been preying on people's passion for equality. To stand up and deliberately exaserbate the situation by attributing to me inflammatory language that no-one else has claimed I used is quite frankly dangerous and the harm it has caused to the community at King's is inexcusable.

2)At APL, when i was told two people had been upset at what I said, I immedatiately expressed regret and asked that a message be passed on to the two complainants that I had of course never meant to cause any kind of offense, and apologised for their upset.

3) Since not even the two complainants were told of the final part of the adjuicators result, and since it was an optional, and confidential, activity to be caried out, and since they had emphatically cleared me of making racist remarks, and not upheld any complaint, I feel my statement was entirely accurate, and was as follows:

"The NUS have made clear that neither of the two complaints made against me have been upheld. It was also found that I had not intended to cause any offence, that I have co-operated fully with the NUS investigation, and that I expressed regret for any possible offence inadvertently caused. They have also noted that my question was not motivated by any racist agenda."

It should also be noted that I wasn't 'banned from NUS events until [I have] attended equal opportunities training'. but that I 'would benefit from training related to the "widening participation" agenda' and should partake in some before going to the next NUS non-democratic event.

I should also make clear that I had offered to meet with the leaders of the facebook group, to listen to their concerns and to answer their questions. It also feels like some people have decided to get rid of me regardless, when the investigation was ongoing, they were waiting for the outcome of it, when that came back saying I did not make racist comments, they dennounced it. It is clear that they are no longer concerned with actually tackling the issues, but instead attacking a person.

What makes me sad, that even if this no confidence motion fails (which it should, being a farce from the outset), it will not be the end of this sorry saga.

Is it not time to deal directly with the bullying that continues to hound Mr Mullan- we don't accept it in primary schools for crying out loud, why is it ok at Universities?

So in summary: Bellavia lied, and broke the rules, the nus cleared him, jennifer larbie has started lying to build up more anger, some people want to kick him out just becasue, and the poor sod is probably a wreck. This is worse than primary school bullying, this is serial targeted abuse that is based on racisim. Racisim that a white guy must be racist if he says something that a non-white person finds offensive.

Ridiculous

c.f. The case of Isis and Richard Riordan, in Freakonomics and also on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Riordan#California_Secretary_of_Education).

Essentially a little girl called Isis met the California Secretary of Education. He claimed her name meant "dirty, stupid girl*". Several black assembleymen complained, notably Mervyn Bymally of Compton, who said, "[Isis is] a little African-American girl. Would he have done that to a white girl?"

Unfortunately it turned out that Isis was actually white. All complaints were dropped. Bellavia will surely not make the same mistake and allow the truth to get in the way of a nice little political agenda, especially as she's riding under the banner of 'equality'.

*I believe this was a misguided joke based on the less-than-salubrious Egyptian goddess.

Whatever happened to discretion? Could they not have had a word with him?

The Black Students Officer must be seen to be a strong leader for black students. As we all know, the best way to demonstrate what a great leader you are is to persecute people who dare to offend you (or, in some areas, just stab them).

How else can black students feel happy with their own existence if they aren't able to abuse white people the way their ancestors were abused?

That should of course have been surrounded by <sarcasm></sarcasm> markers.

its a sad world where sarcasm has to be highlighted by markers.

<sarcasm> i agree <sarcasm>

I'm not sure I agree with you on that point si. It's a common problem that the internet lacks any tone as a print medium, yet lends itself to a conversational style of writing. That's why we have emoticons.

I voted for him the first time round and by damn I'd vote for him if he stood again!