UCL Union

....ban the armed forces from careers fairs" is what I read in my horror in the paper yesterday. When? What vote? How dare you do this in my name. What next, ban the Islamic society because of the religion's links to terrorism? No, of course not. This is absolutely embarrasing and makes me want to distance myself from UCL. In the four years I have been here every sabbatical team has been a bunch of incompetant know nothings but this really takes the biscuit. Fascists.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8295444126

This will be overturned.

Please don't blame the sabbatical team for this - it was a motion at the AGM. Sabbs aren't dictators!

Like Thomas Mason I read this in the Times whilst home from Paris for a weekend (I am erasmus this year). I am disgusted of this motion and actually ashamed to be part of UCL Union at this present moment in time.

I would urge everyone reading this to join the facebook group and sign the petition (under "discussion board").

The reason people might blame the Sabs is because of the sheer lack of publicity for the AGM.

Thank goodness the university itself has disagreed and distanced itself as far away as possible from this dispicable motion.

It is interesting to note the large body of students who disagree with the AGM's outcome which has joined some facbook groups were not at the AGM itself. This reminds me of those classic 'I don't "do" politics' TV ads they had a few years ago. If you don't register for an election, logically, it is your fault that you feel hard-done-by. I think this AGM was very well publicised compared to most of the non-vodpop UCL events. The Sabbs have absolutely nothing to do with how many people with whatever political leanings attend the AGM. The whole point is that everyone who cares about union policy is free to attend. From my understanding it was not held at an unreasonable time. It is simple, you don't turn up, you don't have a say and moaning about it afterwards is either apathetic people ranting about how important the army is - it is important but this is not the time or place to argue about it, that has now passed (twice) - or people who will believe anything their mates tell them to and join facebook groups on a whim. As of now, only 79 of the "thousand-strong" opponents of the outcome have said they are prepared to attend a meeting coordinating a possible response. This to me speaks volumes.

Hear hear Ben.

I agree with Ben, its like all the student who haven't turned up are the ones who are complaining. YOU are the ones who missed out so don't go blaming others for your missed opportunity.

how about the ones that were rehearsing for the opera? I'm sorry but I didnt' see any publicity - the only reason I knew about it was from the weekly emails we get.

Don't be so apologist. The AGM was a shambles and everyone knows it, even if you were so weak as to try to take down the minutes. You have made the entire university a laughing stock for no practical purpose other than your pathetic self-important grandstanding. Grow up.

I wanted to attend the AGM but had my varsity match against kings (Lacrosse), if the agm was at any other time i would have attended. Most of the people who have joined the facebook group didn't know the AGM was taking place so don't be too quick to judge.

Fantastic result. As for those who are moaning about this now, tough, they could have turned up for the vote if they feel so strongly about the armed forces getting kicked off the campus. I love the comments made by the Tory MP, Patrick Mercer. Sorry Mr. Mercer, I thought the Tories were democrats!!

Oh, and to Thomas Mason, it's really grown up of you to call people who don't agree with you Fascists.

Yes. Thomas, something was done "in your name" because you couldn't be bothered to show up for it.
The notice about the reconvened AGM was posted on the 14th February - just under a month is plenty of prior warning. An email was also sent out notifying students of the meeting.
The "troops out of UCL" motion has been on the noticeboard since the 5th of February - the date of the original AGM. If you thought it was this outrageous, all you objectors would have showed up at the meeting and asked for the motion to be moved up the agenda. But you didn't. This is what comes of apathy.

Quite, an illogical comment at that since Fascists are not generally known for their left-wing agendas. Ok, so people have had other committments, fine, the fact remains: what is more important, a lacrosse game/opera rehearsal or democracy?Y ou decided. It's like saying do you go to church or play football of a Sunday morning? As you rightly said, weekly emails go round. I was just saying that i thought it was pretty well publicised compared to most events regarding student participation in governance.

I'm not going to make an arguement, because those that opposed the motions can make it on my behalf. These are comments that pro-OTC students have made on Facebook regarding their conduct at the AGM. It really speaks for itself:


Chris Dodsworth wrote
at 12:07pm yesterday
Hey guys, can I just point out why people walked out. This is really annoying me. It was quite obvious the vote was lost. The reason we walked out was to get quorum called to try and stop the meeting going any further due to the way the meeting was being run.

Staying would not have helped. The same hardcore element was still there and if you had not noticed got the Palestinian link up motion through. From then on it was quite obvious which way it was going to go. There was no way you were going to defeat the motion even with the people who left there. if anything that would have legitimised the meeting as it would then have been in quorate & getting the motions overturned would be trickier. So please do not blame the people who left because they had good reason.
----------------------------------

----------------------------------
Mandy Smith wrote
at 1:44pm yesterday
im completely backing chris in everything he says - the walkout was an absolute last resort. We had all turned up hoping we could voice our opinions in the same way everyone else was at the meeting but when it became clear that no matter what we did we would not be heard and through a completely chaotic and undemocratic AGM we would lose the vote, we had to react
----------------------------------

----------------------------------

You might want to note that collectively it is now 3000 who have registered opposition?

Secondly it is easy to blame the apathy of the student population and this is indeed a problem which the governance view will seek to redress. However this does not change the fact that the motions passed do not represent accurately the views of the UCL student body. Thus an EGM will be called. As a result of the disgrace which the decisions passed last Wednesday have inflicted upon the union publicity will be much higher. This negative publicity based on the decisions of a few mobilised minority interest groups has occurred at a time of UCAS decision making for many students.

Thankfully it has been made clear that the University itself is not supportive of the decision. Neither for that matter is the vice Provost, the media, the public or other university institutions. We intend to prove the the UCL student is not either. Geo-political posturing and irrational misguided decisions on the military are outside of the Unions remit which should exist to benefit its students not declare a foreign policy.

And whilst we are trading quotes you don't want me to quote the GS again do you? I expect it would generate far more uproar than the ones listed above.

See you at the EGM :)

Intelligent and respectible comments Tom. See you at the EGM indeed! When we shall see the difference between those who join a facebook group and those who turn up and voice thier opinions. BTW, anyone know when an EGM was last called, just out of pure curiosity?

Join a note on the other controversial motion.

"A March 2007 report by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Cook of Palestinian Media Watch that initiated Joel Mowbray’s reporting for the Washington Times on USAID’s illegal funding of institutions tied to terrorism, describes in detail the operations of terrorist activity at Al-Quds University, noting that:

• Al-Quds hosts student branches of Hamas and Islamic Jihad on campus
• Campus activities honor terrorists, past and present
• Campus activities advocate terror as legitimate “resistance”
• Al-Quds University property is used for Hamas assemblies
• Al-Quds administration members join in terror group events on campus
• Al-Quds university participates in and sponsors off campus activities honoring terrorists

As an example, that report notes that earlier this year, Al-Quds University sponsored a weeklong celebration in honor of the first chief bombmaker for HAMAS who was responsible for suicide bombings that killed 90 Israelis, mostly civilians, and injured hundreds more."

Original Link: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=1344813'

Thanks guys. As if you hadn't done enough this week to bring us into disrepute.

I am a first year UCL student at UCL's largest student accommodation and have to walk past the union every day to lectures and i have to say the Union's self proclaimed "very well publicised " AGM was anything but. I agree most students are apathetic about most of the decisions the Union makes routinely just as most people don't care about the majority of decisions our government makes until they hit a collective nerve.

This is what the UCLU has done with their arbitrary and ignorant ban on the military. I accept that many people oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as is their democratic right to (notably a right not shared by the people of these countries before these wars). However, a ban on the military does nothing but insult our servicemen and women. It damages their recruitment ability and as a result the Union is threatening servicemen and women's lives in an already overstretched military engaged in two wars on a peacetime budget. If the Union opposes the wars they should have banned the Labour party from campus as it is they that sent our troops to war. The ban on the military damages our military that faithfully carries out its duties as directed by our democratically elected government.

I am disgusted by my own Union and the disgrace they have brought to our University that has rightly condemned them.

Unfortunately, through my own ignorance I did not notice that there was an AGM for the union last wednesday. I did not however expect such a ludicrously insulting motion to be passed in my absence. I joined UCL in september after having served in the armed forces in Afghanistan last year, I regularly have friends to stay with me at the weekends who are still serving and we often drink in the union. I would just like to make the naive people who have voted in favour of this motion aware that the military do not dictate foreign policy nor do they have any say in where they are posted. I think that passing this motion has made UCL look stupid and although the University has stated that it does not support the motion I do not feel that it should allow the union to discriminate against people who are serving their country proudly and bravely.

To Ben Ackers:
The last EGM was last year, as a result of an inquorate referendum on continued affiliation to the NUS. Needless to say, the EGM itself was inquorate, and we remain a part of the NUS.

So, when exactly is the next EGM?

I don't think this EGM will be inquorate. Just to clarify: the troops out motion is not directed against the army. Saying it is insulting to our service personnel is merely insulting your own intelligence. It has been repeatedly stated that the motion does not disrespect anyone who wishes to join the army, it is purely saying that we do not agree with the recruitment methods that are being used. One reason i feel strongly about this is that we are one of the very few countries that recruits people from the age of 16, I remember the army coming to my state secondary school and putting on a big show about how fun the army is and what opportunities can be gained from it. They presented very little of the realities. The army is not fun, it involves daily life and death situations and we believe the recruitment agencies such as the OTC misrepresent the harsh realities of warfare when recruiting minors. They accentuated the financial relief given to people who join up and essentially targeted a relatively poor school in quite an affluent area. Another argument is that prospective students should not have to feel the need to join the army to finance their higher education. What does that say about opportunities in general? A different argument i know but one worth mentioning in passing.

I do wish people would stop reducing this complex argument to the level of flag-waving, Sun-toting 'support our troops' rubbish. It is quite an insult to suggest that we disregard the sacrifices made by our service personnel. Let me make it absolutely clear one last time: everyone on both sides of this debate respects the armed forces and the role they play in our statehood and society. 'Banning the military', as has been suggested by the press, is not what anyone is seeking to do. We want to make the point that the army has plenty of other recruitment resources and it is unnecessary to have them recruiting from what is often day one of university. Even if this is carried at the EGM, the army will still recruit at close to UCL - probably on Gower street along with socialist worker et. al.

To Terrence Martin: you have clearly been reading the papers instead of the motions. Discriminating 'against people who are serving their country proudly and bravely' is not what this is about at all. We all accept that people sacrifice ordinary life to do their bit for the country and support them if it is their individual moral choice. The incentives offered to students aim to draw people in detracting from the basic premise of a perceived moral obligation to fight for your country. Consider this: when the government decided to invade Iraq (see BBC's 10 days to war) what body would have carried out a feasibility study into prospective operations? I think you are being naive to assume that the army had no role in suggesting to the government that the successful invasion and occupation of Iraq would be possible given our available military resources at the time. It has been proven that the government's appraisal of the situation with regard to WMDs and physical threat to the UK was misrepresented by either MI6 or those who twisted their reports, yet the army had its strategy worked out well in advance and this strategy was available to the government throughout the build-up to the war. It boils down to the army saying that if the green light is given, the likely outcome will be victory. As you rightly say, the individuals have no say in the matter whatsoever and putting them at risk for reasons that only the cabinet will have been fully aware of and with which public opinion did not agree. I see this is an injustice to the ordinary Tommy and having such recruitment policies is tantamount to coercing people to join up to a body used for political self-interest - i.e. regime change from hostile to friendly (never mind oil) not the security of our country.

The defense that your protests are not against the military is the Alamo of the anti war argument. Whenever facing attack from the general public on common sense grounds, this one is wheeled out as an ilogical defense. Sam Godwin's remarks about the motion signify the real intent;
"you should not have the choice to volunteer for an organization whose primary job is to kill people overseas in wars of aggression." If that isn't anti-military I don't know what is.
I'd say that you are insulting your own intelligence if you claim that you are anti military but fail to see the message it sends out, the overwhelming media and general public backlash goes some way to show how such token political gestures can be taken.
Please do not use the defense that you care about the Tommy, that is insulting everyone's intelligence, including theirs. If you want to see what Tommy's think of your actions I suggest you take a look at the forums on the Army Rumour Service; http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=91412/start=0.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=91668.html

I find i quite amusing that Ben Ackers seems to be condemning the military from having "its strategy worked out well in advance and this strategy was available to the government throughout the build-up to the war". Really a military that plans engagements in advance and presents them to its democratically elected government, never. Yes the military vastly under estimated the difficulty of such conflicts but that is why we live in a democracy and the people that make such decisions are accountable for them ie the Labour government. As to the suggestion that anybody who is intelligent enough to gain entry to UCL can be coerced into joining the military by a stand at the freshers fair insults your own intelligence Ben.

Ben Ackers, do you know that less military are deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq than around the UK, in Germany, Cyprus and other British bases.

Also your comment that being in the army is not fun is complete rubbish. My sister is being sponsered by the army through university and absolutely loves it - she has the chance to fence, swim, run, climb mountains, ride horses, and travel all around the world. Last year she was paid to go scuba diving in Thailand for 2 weeks, and the summer before she spent 2 weeks sailing in Greece. She, like many people, likes the adventure of the army, and who are you to deprive anyone of making that decision by themselves?

The motion does not seek to prevent people from joining the army? Really? We only disagree with the recruitment methods? Really

Sam Godwin ...



Tom Parkinson wrote
at 4:41pm on March 8th, 2008
These are the words of the chair of the AGM (Gen SEC of the Union)

Sam Godwin (UCL) wrote
at 1:15pm on February 26th, 2008
The only reason why the MOD funds the Officer Training Corps is because it hopes to recruit a portion of its graduates. It is as much an advertisement as any army ad on TV is.

I do not think we should facilitate the MOD showing students their own self-glorified version of playing soldier. Joining the army is not a matter of 'free and informed choice', you should not have the choice to volunteer for an organization whose primary job is to kill people overseas in wars of aggression.

Appeals to 'freedom of speech' and choice end when the appeals are to violence.

'If 'Al Qaeda training corp' wanted to set up a stall at our union it wouldn't matter if some people wanted to 'freely choose' to join them.'

Do you stand by that Ben?

If you haven't seen it yet, The Cheese Grater has done a special report looking at Godwin's complete muck-up of a meeting:

http://www.cheesegratermagazine.org/AGMissue.pdf

Alex Ashman

I have just noticed a qote i posted on facebook has been posted onto this forum apparentlt to prove something - not quite sure what as i stand by the statement and am glad it was posted up here to see! the people that staged the walkout all agree with our motives and that isnt going to change.

and its not too late - the motions have been suspended and no longer stand as UCLU policy pending investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"These students are deeply misguided. They are insulting the men and women who fight for their freedom and the democratic rights of our society."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/nmilitary208.xml
As students of supposedly the 9th best University in the World, we're now being told, by a Tory MP of all people, that we are misguided.
Great. Thanks to the agenda of a few select individuals (and perhaps just because they wanted their name printed in a newspaper. Well done you.) our University is a laughing stock.
If you really wanted to make a difference, how about banning Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan et al for advertising at UCL due to the damage that they are doing to our economy? How about going the whole hog, and starting your own Marxist revolution.
Have some respect for the Army, whether you are british or not, the reason you are living/studying in this country is because people died for this country, and helped make this country what it is. The fact that UK went into Iraq, Afghanistan etc. is a completely separate issue, and it would be naive to think that banning the army from UCL will in any way have implications on their policies and strategies. After all, the Army never asked to be sent into Iraq, did it?
On a separate note, I urge our union to seriously improve their standards of communication - I was lead to believe (foolish, I know) that the meeting was concentrating on the issues put forward by the Friends of Palestine society - an issue that I simply had no interest in. Perhaps that's testament to the successful advertising of that society, and the Union could take a leaf out of their book. A simple email highlighting the importance of not allowing the motion to have passed would have sufficed.
Be proud of Great Britain. And I say that as a Proud Pakistani and a Muslim, privileged to be a part of this great nation.

Both sides are accusing each other of insulting their own intelligence and disrespecting the servicemen and women that make up our armed forces. I was actually at the AGM and despite continuous attempts by the group sitting around the sabbatical officers to disrupt the meeting, we actually got a lot done in the first quorate AGM in years. The motions passed were not an insult to anyone, and quoting newspapers whose journalists were not at the meeting and who clearly didn't read the motions carefully doesn't get you anywhere. UCL Union is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these wars will continue as long as we send more troops where they're not wanted. On the other hand UCL students are still completely free to join groups like the OTC, the only difference is we won't be seeing them at freshers fayre where they make a lot of students uncomfortable. UCL is not the only univeristy in the world or even in London to pass a motion like this. We are not a laughing stock as people suggest. UCL is a top-class institution that carries out cutting-edge research in numerous fields. The idea that the Union's disaffiliation with the OTC would in any way devalue this research is misinformed.
The motions that passed did so in a democratic fashion and the way that they are being repealed is anything but. If people oppose the motions then let them come to the EGM and lets discuss it again. Taking personal decisions in minor committee meetings is what should really offend people. I would also like to say that there is no such thing as an apathetic student. This is an idea brought recently into politics to excuse a lack of communication. All UCL Unions motions affect students in their daily life and every time i've brought people along to an AGM they have got thoroughly involved in the procedures. These can be enjoyable, fair, productive events if people treat each other with a minimum of politeness.

As far as publicity is concerned, well I'm apathetic and generally have my head in the sand in terms of union events, but even I knew about this several weeks before the AGM because of a RUMS bulletin that went out warning all pro-OTC students to be ready to turn up and vote. Considering how many medical students there are in UCL I'd have thought the word would have spread fast if people were that bothered.
I do not mean to be flippant about something that obviously means a lot to people. I am sorry that OTC students/others should feel victimised or marginalised in any way. And I am definitely and categorically not in any way belittling the courage and sacrifice of individuals who have served/ are serving, I know they make greater sacrifices than I could even contemplate. Which knowledge is a big part of why I am so glad the motion went through, and proud of the Union for rising to this difficult occasion.

Thanks Sham for the quotation. I just want to point out that I am not part of the OTC and have no interest in it.

I just don't think that other students should be imposing their views on another set of students. This is meant to be a union - of all the students. This motion has merely caused a fraction amongst the student body. This should be a netural platform which allows its members to undertake any actions they want unless they cause hurt or offence to others. Therefore, I disagree with this motion because of the damage it has caused in polarising the students, weakening the students union.

Limiting people's freedoms is unfair & hardly the traits of a liberal democracy.

Just a note if you wanted to counter that last point. I am not limiting your freedoms by undermining your 'democratic AGM'. Banning quorum counts, failing to follow rules & publicising a meeting with political bias when you are the chair is not fair or democratic. Unless you are in DDR of course.

John,
“The motions passed were not an insult to anyone” that is incredibly ignorant. I think the people fighting in various parts of the world would disagree with you. I really do suggest reading this forum http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=91668.html as it goes to show just how insulted they are. I’d say a good proportion of the student body are insulted as well, I don’t think I’ve actually met anyone yet who isn’t against this. It’s the fact that UCL’s name has been dragged through the mud by an wholly unrepresentative action of 0.004% of the student body which gripes most people. A chance to re-jig the constitution maybe?
“these wars will continue as long as we send more troops where they're not wanted” do you mean to suggest that banning the OTC will stop this? That is illogical on so many levels, in fact it doesn’t make any sense. The UN, which is fairly representative of the civilised world wants them there.
“they make a lot of students uncomfortable” this is sad and goes to show the gulf that has emerged between the public and those in the services. The main reason why this came out in the press is because it was announced on the same day as the PM condemning the RAF’s decision to tell people not to wear uniform. The way to get around this ignorance of the public is not to tell the services to shy away, but to engage with the public. Any grievances about what they are doing should be directed towards the government.
“The motions that passed did so in a democratic fashion” I believe that has being proved wrong as we speak, regarding the Gen Sec’s chairing of the meeting.
I agree with everything you’ve said in your last paragraph, except for the bit about all motions affecting students in their daily lives, I think that is what is bugging people about the latest motions. They are issues that may be noble to some, but to the vast majority are an irrelevance or just plainly not what they believe and definitely do not affect their daily lives.
I think this is one of those situations where the union has been brought back to reality on what they’re here for and as you quite rightly say should develop communication both ways.

Jack- the "arrse" forums are pathetic. Let me quote a few posts from
the thread you linked:
"ow about coinciding the forces protest march with the crustys march on
mayday 1 big battle royal on the streets of london. We can show them
what real anrchy is when they are left in a pool of p1ss and blood"
"The student union at my university were all a bunch of oxygen thieves,
disproportionately gay females, and various shades of extreme
left-wingers all."
"Communist lesbian oxygen thieves all."
"The Jews invented guilt, the Catholics perfected it, and the Muslims
abolished it."
"It was a happy moment when I heard it reported (from a friend at UCL)
that Sham was fearing for his life. "
Oh dear Jack, is this what you want the students of UCL to associate
with our armed forces? Hardly doing them service, surely.
And for that matter, I'm not fearing for my life. A bunch of fustrated
soldiers taking out their testosterone-fueled insecurities at their
computers is hardly making me shiver in my boots. Reactionary bigots,
the lot of them.

I'm sorry for the double-post, either my internet connection or the
software for threads if playing up. Here is an article written in
response to the racist and xenophobic language that is being used on
"arrse". You should be ashamed, Jack, that you feel it appropriate to
link such a site that allows for homophobic, racist and extremely
nationalistic language to be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right wing is now trying to whip up a storm of protest against the
students. Many have unashamedly used the fact that the current
president of the UCL Stop the War society, and mover of the resolution
is Sham Rajyaguru, to make sweeping racist statements.
Who really supports soldiers’ rights?
The most blatant attempt to massage public opinion was the collusion in
bolstering a flagging war with photo-shoots of “heroic” prince Harry,
mucking in on the Afghan frontline. Well, actually, the royal was held
several miles behind the frontline, telephoning through co-ordinates at
guessed-at Taliban positions to far from heroic hi-tech jet pilots to
bomb from on high. But somehow this reality is turned on its head with
the new euphemism, “asymmetric warfare”. The daily misery and mounting
death toll of rank and file soldiers and the occupied peoples is pushed
aside, as if the prince was the only “bullet magnet”. If any
journalists had bothered to phone Sham up, they would have found out
that, far from being a woolly pacifist, he was a cadet with several
years training before being disillusioned by British imperialism’s
colonial and reactionary policies. If they had read their history
books, they would know that Britain’s armed forces would have lost many
battles over the years, were it not for soldiers from the Indian
sub-continent.
More importantly, Sham would have told them that the socialist youth
group that he is a member of, Revolution, supports rank and file
soldiers’ rights – to meet independently from their officers, to take
political action, and, yes, to refuse to fight in reactionary wars. The
armed forces, on the other hand, ban serving soldiers from speaking in
public or telling the truth about life on the frontline; they fight
long legal battles to deny the existence of war-related illnesses, like
Gulf War Syndrome; they pay the Gurkhas, British soldiers from Nepal,
and their widows a pittance, because non-white lives are cheaper, more
expendable.
The truth is that it is socialists today – as it has always been – who
stand up for the rights of rank and file soldiers and their families.
We support and work with Military families against the War. The
politicians and pressmen and women slander and ignore them. We support
those cadets and their parents fighting against abuse and possibly
worse at training camps like Deepcut. And it is socialists who are
trying to end the bloodshed by fighting to bring the troops home – not
so they can be redeployed in another aggressive war, but with British
imperialism defeated and unable to continue on its colonial path.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What gems the "ARRSE" website has:
"Enoch Powell -
The best Prime minister we never had"
"I remember my old man, years ago, joining the"Enoch Powell for P.M.
party.He had posters,badges ,all sorts of gumpf. Couldnt see what all
the fuss was about back then. Bloody can now though!!!"
"Rivers of blood mr E.Powell was so right and its starting alrady. What
we need is a Millitary Coup that would put the cat amongst the pigeons
as they say. "
"Inspired by this thread I have actually just gone off and read the
Rivers of Bllod speech.
Stunningly as appropriate now 40 years later (cant speak for 1968 as I
wasn't born), parts of it echo the attitudes spouted now toward average
white working man in other threads on Arrse over the last few days."
Are you begining to wish you hadn't suggested we see "what Tommy's
think "?

People seem to be confused with our opposition to the army's recruitment policies allowed by british law implemented by the houses of parliament - the governing bodies of the country. I will try to state my personal opposition to these policies (after all AGMs are about broad agreement/disagreement with regard to individual convictions) as succinctly as possible because they have been questioned and i would like people to see why i believe what i believe.

1) The british army is the only army in europe which actively recruits from the age of 16. Not even the USA does this. I believe that if you are not considered to be master enough of your own mind to buy and consume alcohol and tobacco for instance, you should not be considered mature enough to make the decision to sign yourself over to the state.
2) I disagree that the army should confound what is a moral decision to serve one's country with what is essentially a way to get into university when you otherwise would not be able to afford this.
3) Britain has lost its moral authority with regard to the public's trust in that they will conduct themselves in accordance with international law and i believe we should say 'no, we won't have you recruiting for operations not based on international law here'. As an illustrations, Jack Riminton used the phrase 'in the services' referring to members of our armed forces. I question what in what interests they are contracted to serve.



To Victoria R A Adams:
"Ben Ackers, do you know that less military are deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq than around the UK, in Germany, Cyprus and other British bases" - this shows how little you continue to understand the meaning of the motion.
1) Most countries have overseas military bases. This is to do with tactical and organisational alliances such as NATO and has absolutely nothing to do with this motion. Furthermore it is not these soldiers being killed because they don't have adequate supplies of equipment. This is what happened in Afghanistan.
2) That's something of an obvious fact, unless of course you've not seen that RAF ad that says it takes 10 people on the ground for every person in a plane. Every army throughout history has auxillery troops - you seem to think it will surprise us to learn that Britain does not send every single member of the armed forces to war whilst leaving our own country and overseas bases empty.

I concede i was unclear on the subject of fun. I accept the fact that fun activites are included, what i was reffering to is being in the battlefield; being shot at, constant roadside bomb threats etc. Combat is the primary function of the army and that is what i was referring to. I apolgise unreservedly for the confusion.

To Thomas J Parkinson:
'If 'Al Qaeda training corp' wanted to set up a stall at our union it wouldn't matter if some people wanted to 'freely choose' to join them.' Do I stand by this? Well, for a start the two halves of this statement do not really connect, what's UCL got to do with al qaeda? Why are you asking does it matter, i take it you mean 'would you support them' but I shall begin with that time honoured phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. I would answer that I agree with free will but not necessarily what comes of it. People should be able to choose what militant organisations they join for themselves. Of course it matters that people join al qaeda but you have to question the existance of any such militant group. A good example is Hamas; if i was trapped in gaza by an occupier whose army thinks nothing of rolling up in un-marked cars and shooting up people's cars and bombing my city with aeroplanes and helicopters as a retaliation for home-made explosives I would have considered joining hamas. You have to understand that these militant groups are generally caused by desparation. Al qaeda is born out of religious extremism, not the physical oppression of a people, so yes, i oppose al qaeda and I wonder why you ask such a question.

To Christopher J Dodsworth:
I appreciate your views and input to this debate and agree that this has damaged the union. However i think the reason for this is because the AGM is being lumped together. The passage of the Palestine motion is watertight etc... until the motion for no confidence was not carried as that was when mass walkouts began if memory serves. The numbers don't lie. Following the OTC motion, the quoracy count was 222 (including those leaving after quorum was called during the vote to my understanding). Around 100 people had left and i still say that by doing so they damaged their own credibility in refuting anything passed after their departure. I am saddened that the powers that be do not agree my logic. You must surely concede that the minutes omit references to improper conduct from the floor and therefore that they do not take all aspects of the meeting into account. With regard to your belief in a neutral platform i would raise the issue of the BNP controversy. I think that a line is to be drawn somewhere along the line of who we give this platform to and that line is drawn at bigotted views and there are far more important issues to be discussed at our universities than the views than a party that the overwhelming majority of the british public finds repugnant.

To Hassan Azam:
"how about banning Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan et al for advertising at UCL due to the damage that they are doing to our economy?" simply because the city provides an enormous percentage of the economy of this country and if this was damaged our country would be screwed.

A few general comments before i return to the test match:

If the sort of people that make such remarks as Sham has highlighted are OTC members, I would vote to ban these people from the union as bigotted people. Sham also makes a good point about Deepcut.

To anyone who uses the 'people in the army died for our democratic privileges' and any similar arguments: i assume you're talking about the first or second world war and it confuses me as a student of history to think about equating the world-wide coalition against the axis of evil (Hitler, not as defined by bush) with blind support of the army seventy years later in the name of democracy as the army does not represent democracy. It is a hierarchical institution checked by another hierarchical institution which is the defense ministry and the upper eschelons of the government. We as citizens have no say in the policies of the army as proved by the events of five years ago (to the day on wednesday, come and support international law by protesting the Iraq war tomorrow!) when millions of people around the country brought city centres to a standstill in opposition to the government's policy. I would be very interested in research directed at enumerating those who signed petitions if anyone knows of any.

I think this discussion is an excellent representation of the views held at UCL and further proves my point that those who really take an interest and a passion in debate over matters of real significance are not shy of expressing their views and debating them with their peers. I think far from turning us into a laughing stock or whatever, we have shown confidence in bringing important issues to the attention of loads of our fellow students and that does us credit.

" What next, ban the Islamic society because of the religion's links to terrorism? No, of course not"....gee thanks....really appreciate your solidarity.

It is rather naive for anyone at undergraduate or postgraduate level to whine that AGM was not adequately publicised. The standing orders require only that the notices be published on the notice board and thats that. This is not some third world illiterate village vote. Its the AGM of a top level university were one expects mature and intelligent participation in student politics. In any case Victoria one of the complainants above has admitted that she knew about the AGM in the email. So there, that was the best that anyone could do and so stop crying about it.
Secondly, there are also excuses that one could not attend the vote because of other obligations. well that is why there are is no requirement for 100% participation. It is taken for granted that decision will be made whether you participate or not and if you want to then it is upto to you to be proactive. If you sleep over your rights...no one sadly is going to wake you up and then you are left to resorting to facebook and forums like this to get attention.
I also find surprising that the Champions of democracy are concerned about, the Vice Provost, the press and negative publicity....really..who decides what's good for the student population? The Vice Provost, the press and the general public?
Anyone who reads the comments in this forum and in facebook can clearly see that the opposition is not really against the procedure of the AGM itself but because they did not like the outcome of the AGM. Like the quoted portion above by Rayajaguru of the comments made on facebook, the members moved to make the meeting inquorate because they were losing the vote because of the 'harcore' Palestinian 'element'. Well you cant be a hardcore democrat if you cannot stomach the fact that hardcore elements might win elections. You become a hardcore anti-democrat when you start resorting measures to sabotage the elections.
There was also a comment that this makes the whole university a laughing stock. Well what does make the whole university a laughing stock is suspending motions passed at the AGM because they were unpalatable to authors of online forums who did not even attend the AGM.

Thomas Parkinson has decided to cite a report submitted Itamar Marcus of the Palestinian Media Watch. Well that's brilliant. Anyone who goes to the Palestinian Media Watch would know where their affiliations stand. After all who is Itamar Marcus but an appointee of Israel for negotiations with Palestine. So the report is as credible as an Israeli representative reporting on the Palestinians.

Sham,
I posted the link to ARRSE to show that people have been very insulted by your actions, contrary to the argument that the motion has the interests of the Tommy at heart. I think the fact that, you, the person who proposed the motion have resorted to attacking an anonymous, public internet board on the basis of some politically incorrect statements goes to show you are clutching at straws.
George Orwell described it pretty well “You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm”.

Hardly, Jack. I wouldn't call them "politically incorrect" statements,
I'd call them bigoted and oppressive statements, and if anything is
evidence that the ARRSE forums isn't the mouthpeice for your regular
rank-and-file soldier. If anything, it's a concentration of the
arse-end of the British public, the most reactionary and right-wing
element of it. "Enoch Powell was right". Need I say any more?
George Orwell also said "In times of universal deceit, telling the
truth will be a revolutionary act". No, there were no WMD's in Iraq.
No, they couldn't be launched at the UK with only minutes notice. No,
British troops are not there bringing liberation and democracy to the
Iraqi people. How's that for telling the truth? I'm sure some people
-have- been insulted by the motion. But not the ex-British soldier I
met last night, Salman Mirza, at a screening of the excellent Battle
for Haditha, a true story about the massacre of civillians that
American troops undertook in Aug 2005.
If you wish to hear more from what rank-and-file troops think, please
come to a meeting organised by some staff at UCL, with George Solomonu
who's an ex-Squaddie, and someone (who's name I can't remember) from
Military Families Against The War, a mother that has lost a son in
Afghanistan.
It's at 4pm on Tuesday in the Medawar Waston LT.

MEETING: FIGHT MILITARY RECRUITMENT AND DEFEND DEMOCRACY AT UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE LONDON
University College London’s students’ union voted to pass a motion in
its Annual General Meeting to ban the Officer Training Corps,
University Royal Navy Units, University of London Air Squadron and all
other military organisations from the union’s fresher’s events and
other union sponsored events, Union premises, and student run media.
The Annual General Meeting had the largest attendance in UCL’s recent
history with more than 325 people in attendance at the start of the
meeting, making it the first UCL Union General Meeting to make the
Union’s 1% quorum since 2003.
However, there is an attempt underway to claim that the meeting was
'undemocratic'. This is being orchestrated by the union's rightwing.
This has come in a context of the tabloid press grossly distorting the
intent and the scope of the motions, and of vicious campaigns of
character assassination, public harassment and intimidation, up to and
including racist insults and threats of bodily harm, against students
who supported the motions both as a group and targeting specific
individuals.
On the 12th Samantha Godwin, the General Secretary of UCL Union, was
suspended. She was given no justification for this action, as is
explicitly required by the standing orders. She was merely told that
the General Manager of UCLU had received letters detailing "serious"
accusations against her conduct at the Union AGM (on the 5th) - but
these accusations are unknown to her and have not been made public.
Sabbatical officers of UCLU have breached UCLU’s constitution and
standing orders in order to prevent the decisions taken at the AGM
becoming policy. This has included the acting Finance and Democracy
officer, as chair of Governance Committee, refusing to accept motions
or votes from elected members of the Committee and distributing false
minutes. Tuesday 18 March 4pm
Medawar Watson Lecture theatre, UCL Campus, Gower Street (tube:
Euston/Euston Square/Warren Street)
Speakers: Sam Godwin, suspended General Secretary of UCL Union and
George Solomou, Ex-British Soldier

Sham,
ARRSE actually is largely representative of the army (“the unofficial British Army community website”) with nearly 35,000 members from Privates up to Senior Officers. Them, like many others at UCL, myself included are not what you can simply label ‘right wing’ as a way of circumventing proper debate. Most are in uproar at the overt nonsensical nature of the motion. At the risk of repeating the same argument ad nauseam, if you have a problem the decisions of a democratically elected government do whatever you seem fit; lobby, march, sign a petition, vote for someone else. We are arguing against an undemocratic motion that is unrepresentative of the students, the sole purpose of which it seems is to score a political point at the detriment to everyone but yourselves.

From the UCLU notice board
http://www.uclunion.org/student-union/noticeboard/index.php
"Sabbatical Apology
All members of UCL Union,
This notice is to update you on the situation regarding the AGM and
Union Officer suspensions.
Last night UCLU Council had a motion submitted regarding these issues
which mandated all suspensions to be reversed.
The Sabbatical team has been mandated to issue a public apology for
"suspending" Samantha Godwin as General Secretary, this "suspension"
was considered an act of abuse of the procedures and the sabbatical
officers were found to have acted inappropriately by a vote of Union
Council.
Sam Godwin as General Secretary, and Jim Hunkin as Acting Finance and
Administration Officer have been reinstated with immediate effect. All
motions passed at the reconvened AGM are now considered to be UCLU
Policy.
The UCL Union Sabbatical Team 07/08"