• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
27,886
As usual with you, no principle, just come down on the side whose aims you support.
Of course there's a principle. You just don't seem to like it in this context.

The principle is that those running organisations should do so in a financially prudent way. And if they don't it's open to the organisations members to challenge that.

In virtually any other context you would not object to that principle, I suspect. But you're willing to sacrifice that principle because this is about a pro-life person misusing the organisations money to further a pro-life cause, so you're fine with it.
 

The_SR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,037
The UCDSU have a mandate from the student body to take a pro choice position. If she wants to overturn that, spend 8 grand on a second referendum.
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
18,894
When running an organisation these issues are ultimately matters of financial risk.

The risk in running the ad was a potential fine of €4K. Let's say her legal advice was that there was a 50% chance of prosecution (seems high given twenty years lack of prosecution) - that's a probable cost of €2k to the union.

On the other hand choosing to reprint had a 100% chance of costing €8k.

She chose the much more expensive course of action,which is money that didn't go to other union services or activities.
My point was mainly aimed at Des and his comment and his abrupt change of heart about legal ramifications etc , yesterday he was very gung ho in his defense of this site decision yesterday for killing a Harvey Weinstein discussion thread despite a very minuscule chance that Harvey might by pass every other publication in the world and attempt to sue P.ie , but today he seems to be having a go at the students union for not risking a legal fight.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
34,933
She claimed she'd be neutral on the issue of abortion.
What's really risable on this thread is that no poster who is outraged has said a word about the fact that the girl misled the students when she gave that election promise. That's the real kernel here I would have though. I imagine if I were a pro choice student who voted for her based on that promise that's I'd be very quick to sign the impeachment petition.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
Under the Irish version of her name.
She was openly on campus actively pro life.

She didn't hide this, you do a disservice to students by suggesting that they didn't know her or any of the other three candidates who ran.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
32,116
Thats fine to a point. Hoever the union had been running this document for years with no issue and she unilaterally took action on legal advise she claims she personally obtained. Its a solo run she explicitly promised not to do.
Did she? Or did she say she'd remain neutral on a political issue? How is following the law a breach of neutrality?
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
But some different views here:

I think anyone who speaks out for pro-life is being lambasted. Anyone who speaks out about pro-life is automatically perceived as wrong. There is so much liberal bias. There is no platform for pro-life. Even at Electric Picnic they had posted for 'Repeal the 8th'. Everything is being politicised."
The first-year student said he's "sick of listening" to the debate and that "it doesn't matter to me anyway because nobody is taking into account what the dad wants".
Another first-year student said he agrees that there is no free speech around the abortion issue at the moment.
"We don't have free speech. It's just whatever opinion is popular at the time and then you're lambasted if yours isn't the same.
"I think people are being too hard on her. She's only three weeks into the year. I think impeachment is only necessary when people are consistently messing up and are doing things for the wrong reasons. I think this is people really wanting the 8th Amendment to be repealed and they're beating her up because she disagrees."

'Anyone who speaks out for pro-life is lambasted... there is no free debate' - UCD student union president facing impeachment over pro-life actions - Independent.ie

+
The Welfare Officer Eoghan Mac Domhnaill was unavailable to speak to Independent.ie but posted a Facebook post urging people not to support the petition.
"As angry as I was, and still am, that that information was taken out I’m not going to sit idle while people circle around my friend and my president.
"Katie, in my eyes has, bar this incident been an absolutely phenomenal president.” “I’ll not be signing any impeachment documentation and should a referendum be called I’ll be standing by Katie all the way.”
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,560
What's really risable on this thread is that no poster who is outraged has said a word about the fact that the girl misled the students when she gave that election promise. That's the real kernel here I would have though. I imagine if I were a pro choice student who voted for her based on that promise that's I'd be very quick to sign the impeachment petition.
Please tell us what it is then as you seem to know all about it?
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
34,933
It's student politics. You didn't see the Gardaí arresting all those on the abortion bus either or going after those putting up their posters and numbers for sexual services.

It probably is illegal due to how explicit it is, either way, it was prudent of her to protect her students by not exposing the Union to a costly legal battle (I'm assuming the Union would have fought it on a pro abortion principle).
LOL, you are a panic Ger and there's no doubt about that. She wasn't being prudent Ger and well you know it, she wasn't protecting the Union Ger, she wasn't protecting the students Ger. She was carrying out with gusto her pro life leanings.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
52,905
I wouldn't see anything odd in that, one presumes the students thought she'd make a great president, from what I read she has been a good president. But she did make an election promise to remain neutral on this one issue.


That's my point. Her anti abortion views were known prior to her election, so it seems a stretch to suggest that she is being impeached for having anti abortion views.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,676
I wouldn't see anything odd in that, one presumes the students thought she'd make a great president, from what I read she has been a good president. But she did make an election promise to remain neutral on this one issue.
And she should have done so. If some shrieking feminist abortionista had run would she be asked to be neutral or would she gung ho push the pro-abortion line?
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
What's really risable on this thread is that no poster who is outraged has said a word about the fact that the girl misled the students when she gave that election promise. That's the real kernel here I would have though. I imagine if I were a pro choice student who voted for her based on that promise that's I'd be very quick to sign the impeachment petition.
Not if you think what she did was prudent to protect the Union. Let's face it, things are hotting up maybe it would have been challenged this year before the referendum.

Mind you, at the click of a button you have all that info and more on your phone.
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
11,806
Did she? Or did she say she'd remain neutral on a political issue? How is following the law a breach of neutrality?
We only have her report of the legal advice received, that she has refused to share, even with the other officer of the SU, that the article was illegal.

I'm not sure if we even know the source of the legal advice, whether it was the Union's usual solicitor or someone else.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
Did she? Or did she say she'd remain neutral on a political issue? How is following the law a breach of neutrality?
Why has she refused to present the legal advice she was given, which caused her to reprint, to the union?
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
34,933
Not if you think what she did was prudent to protect the Union. Let's face it, things are hotting up maybe it would have been challenged this year before the referendum.

Mind you, at the click of a button you have all that info and more on your phone.
I love the fact that she's hotted up the students. It's a spectacular own goal. And you know it.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
27,886
Did she? Or did she say she'd remain neutral on a political issue? How is following the law a breach of neutrality?
When weighing up legal risk, choosing the more costly option is demonstrably financially imprudent.

It seems reasonable to assume that this imprudence arose from her personal views rather than just incompetence. But either way her members are entitled to challenge it.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
47,680
LOL, you are a panic Ger and there's no doubt about that. She wasn't being prudent Ger and well you know it, she wasn't protecting the Union Ger, she wasn't protecting the students Ger. She was carrying out with gusto her pro life leanings.
Perhaps but the argument could just as easily be made that she was acting to protect her Union.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom