Live!
Fri 30 Jul 2010
- The award-winning student news website of Imperial College

NOTICE: Due to a large amount of spam, a new CAPTCHA has been added to the discussion form. You will need to correctly fill in the two words shown in the image each time you submit a comment. Failure to do so may result in the loss of everything you have typed, so please don't forget this bit.

Live! - News

Two More Candidates Spark Controversy

Mar 08 2010 21:36
Kent Brockman
Two more election candidates have lit up the Live! discussion board, following reports of two candidates' conduct at an ICU society's event last year.
There's nothing like a good bit of wine and cheese...

Two more candidates in the current Imperial College Union Sabbatical elections have caused some controversy, after concerns were raised over another candidate's conduct in an email to Live! on Saturday.

The new allegations began with comments on Live!'s discussion boards, claiming that two of the election candidates had "stolen" from the Union.

Having delved a little deeper into the matter, Live! can now reveal that the incident in question occurred during a "Cheese & Wine" event held in the Huxley building on March 5th last year.

The two students, currently standing for election, were physically removed from Huxley by security.

The event, organised by CheeseSoc as a part of the Fairtrade Fortnight celebrations, was well attended with a number of witnesses to the event having spoken to us about what happened on the night.

Eye-witnesses say that incidents began when one individual, now standing in the 2010 Sabbatical elections [we'll call them Candidate A], walked into the event without paying and took a bottle of alcohol.

It is reported that a bottle matching the description of the one taken was later found in a Physics lecture theatre, where it is believed Candidate A consumed it.

Later in the evening, another individual [whom I'll refer to as Candidate B] entered the event via a "back door" to avoid the ticket desk at the entrance to the room.

Candidate B then walked up to the table containing the bottles of alcohol and attempted to conceal one inside their jacket, being spotted by the student manning the table.

They were essentially being drunk and disorderly. Both were using foul language and one of them was violent.
Eye-witness

When requested to return the bottle, Candidate B claimed that they were simply "pouring it" and walked over to another table - snatching a bottle there and then running out of the room.

Both Candidate A and Candidate B then returned to the event a while later, in what one eye-witness described as "quite a drunken state", and both became verbally abusive towards event organisers and those attending the event.

One event attendee, spoken to by Live!, described how he "threw them out - one of them physically" after the pair had been "using foul language". The student also described one of the two candidates' actions as "violent".

The student also said that he recalled "attempted vandalism in the toilets and some threats made", adding that some other students attending the event were "scared".

Another student attending the event told Live! how he had attempted to persuade the pair to leave the building, however they refused and Imperial College security were called to the scene.

Upon arrival in Huxley, security were greeted by verbal abuse from the two infiltrators of the event and were forced to physically remove them from the building.

The incident raises more questions about the suitability of candidates in this year's elections, and whether Imperial College Union should allow candidates with a somewhat concerning record of conduct to participate in Sabbatical elections.

Email this Article | Share on Facebook | Print this Article

Discussion about “Two More Candidates Spark Controversy”

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.
1.  
Mar 09 2010 01:40
 

I don't give a s**t. I just want the iPad to come out!

Mar 09 2010 09:29
 

It was those filthy little scumbags Adam Gill and Mike Richards. Case closed. Denying anything now?

3. This post has been deleted.
Mar 09 2010 09:52
 
4.  
Mar 09 2010 10:45
 

Ravi Pall, Dan Wan, Victoria Masding, Kadhim Shubber are in a small exclusive clique. Them all winning these sabbatical positions will hardly result in a proper representation of the student body.

5. tbh..   
Mar 09 2010 10:56
 

I wouldn't count writing for Felix as being part of a small exclusive clique. Surely being involved in something quite union-based just leads on to being involved in union-goings on.

Plus, I thought Dan was friends with those hot birds...

6. Meh   
Mar 09 2010 11:10
 

Since when did a group of friends become an evil "exclusive clique"? And How about the Adam gill, mike Richards, Esther kang trifecta of douche

7. lol   
Mar 09 2010 11:52
 

If the 'exclusive clique' includes only 4 people, it sounds more like a lack of friends...

Yes, people who spend unhealthy amounts of time in a basement together develop in-jokes and may occassionally forget what the outside world is.

8. @6   
Mar 09 2010 11:54
 

I prefer to call them a triumvirate of monkeys

9. This post has been deleted.
Mar 09 2010 11:59
 
Mar 09 2010 12:00
 

is an illusion designed to stop you rising up and fighting the powers that be!!!

Mar 09 2010 12:05
 
  1. 2 is right, and excepting the toilet vandalism, everything mentioned in the article is true - there are eye witness accounts which were sent to the the President/DPCS at the time.
Mar 09 2010 14:30
 

if i were a cynic, i would suggest that if heather was more confident in her farce campaign then there wouldnt be any need for her friends to write into live?

trying to win an farce by mud slinging is hardly an admirable tactic.

on the other side it doesnt take much thinking to see that these allegations and the 'bar outrage' are likely to have been raised by friends of opposition candidates to the accused.

its probably certain that these events are not figments of the imagination, but the version of events given in each article is likely to be biased for the reason given above.

im finding it hard to judge the severity of both incidents because if they were both very serious the candidates names should be well known to the union. then why has no action been taken to remove them?

perhaps the seriousness of both incidents must not have been sufficient enough to raise eyebrows when they put themselves up for nomination; otherwise why didnt the union simply act to remove the candidates before the farce have begun? or do they have no powers to do this?

Mar 09 2010 14:31
 

i take it e le cti on automatically changes to farce?

noice

Mar 09 2010 14:52
 

are you suugesting a couple of wine and cheese ponces could have thrown out Adam Gill, seriously thats ridiculous. I think this whole think is a gross exaggeration.

15. icuafc   
Mar 09 2010 15:37
 

sanchez and realist = Adam Gill. Haha you couldn't punch your way out of a paper bag dweeb, and stop trying to sow seeds of doubt you paranoid loser.

All the ppl here beleive in positive campaigning and just want to show up what a turd you are. For teh lulz

16. lolz   
Mar 09 2010 15:57
 

Adam Gill and Mike Richards were givin out free wine and cheese this lunchtime, they've got my vote!

Mar 09 2010 17:54
 

Gill has mine.

Mar 09 2010 18:28
 

and mine

Mar 09 2010 18:48
 

It's a Farce !

Mar 10 2010 13:30
 

Where were the stewards? I bet this event had more than fifty people... while every society seems to forego the cost of having stewards (hack dominated societies are the worst, it's that whole we're involved in therefore we're above the rules that apply to other societies), I'm pretty sure they are meant to be there, for good reason.

Having stewards at this event would have done two things, acted as a deterent to the alleged wine theft and abusive behaviour and secondly there would have been an official record of the incident instead of what is currently just hearsay and allegations...

While I'm not writing this in support of the Candidates A and B, there were clearly failings of the event organisers to ensure that the event was properly overseen. Even if there were fewer than 50 people, there was cheese and alcohol involved, students go nuts for these and extra precautions should have been made.

It all comes down to the cost of stewards doesn't it? Perhaps the union could review the way it charges for stewards for smaller events etc, if societies are not getting them because it makes the event too expensive then its not working... perhaps something needs to be done to help medium events that attract participation outside the society itself... just a thought.

Mar 10 2010 13:53
 

Vigilante volunteers, that's the answer! Defend the events from grotbag intuders!

22. Hmm   
Mar 10 2010 13:55
 

It isn't hearsay and allegations when there was a disciplinary and a fine was imposed.

Who would be willing to subsidise the cost of stewards?

Mar 10 2010 14:11
 

Interesting and who would be at fault if a fight had broken out over the wine and a student had been injured, it would be the event organisers, and ultimately the union... this is a serious point... What if something happened at an event where union rules state there should be stewards, somebody sued... it could get really messy.

Perhaps the Union, the organisation that subsidisies societies. It wouldn't take much to ringfence a pot of money specifically for events held by a society where a large percentage of non society members are expected to attend...

Mar 10 2010 19:38
 

how dare you insult esther kang. she is bare fit and i would love to tap that

Add your comment:

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

Live! Poll

Will England win the World Cup?





Live!