Since we're being attacked for partisanship (though for who no one seems to know) we thought we'd repeat our stance.
We're not for anyone. We're not against anyone. We just enjoy politics and think students should have more interaction with their representatives.
Unfortunately at the moment our representatives are engaged in some frought wrangling and we're getting flak for reporting it. We don't like cheaters. Nor would we like false accusations of cheating. So let's see what the appeal process reveals, but enjoy discussing it in the meantime.
At the very least we feel that the rules on EUSA elections are going to need tightening up to stop this sort of debacle happening next year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
I saw that scum Ramsay walking down the street and shouted "Cheating, lying, filthy scum" at him. The spineless little hippy didn't even have the guts to look me in the face. I hope he is ashamed at the way he has ruined EUSA and ruined these elections. He should be barred from all the other positions he ran for as well. It's outrageous that a confirmed cheat should be given the benefit of an appeal. No wonder no-one has any confidence left in EUSA. He has all the board of EUSA in his pocket as well.
Nick Ward is the rightful winner of this election, period. He is the only candidate who has shown honesty and integrity throughout the campaign. That he was prepared to join forces with Harry Cole, who hates him, to help turn Adam in for cheating, shows his courage and willigness to build bridges with his opponents. I cannot think of a more suitable person to lead our students association.
If Adam's appeal is successful, then EUSA is letting Nick Ward down. Ward is right: shame on Adam Ramsay. Shame on him.
Wow, you've got to wonder where these baseless accusations of partisanship come from....
You can't blame the forum for what we write on it.
Ward should win for his experience and integrity
(and thanks for bringing a forum back- studying just wasn't the same without them)
If Ward wins, there'll be a backlash. People that know him think he's a clown, and he ahs some really stoneage policies.
Honesty and integrity? Clumsiness and inadequacy are better.
He'd lead our Union like Stalin, there's no compromise in the boy whatsoever, having been acknowledged by anyone working with him.
I have never felt so strongly about an issue in all my life. Ward is a twat.
Bullshit, i'm someone who is involved in EUSA and don't always agree with Nick but he is a person who has strong views but so do most in EUSA. Nick is very reasonable and thats as someone who has worked with him.
Also if you've never felt thkis trongly about anything in your life, you live quite a sheltered existance
I am seeing a clear change in direction and leaning in this blag in comparison to the now defunct Eusa-less... I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw people saying he was the only one with 'integrity' and the only one who has been completely honest. I voted for Gabe, based purely on the fact that his name was relatively untarnished in comparison to the others.
15.14 - So you voted for someone who didn't do anything
Ive been on SRC for a while and didn't know Gabe was even a rep until I read the absences for the last SRC. He's been on for 2 years, I've not seen him once. What has he done??
i voted for cole but i have got to the point where i just dont care who wins.
AS LONG AS ITS NOT RAMSAY.
and for the record its cole building the bridges not ward.
If Adam survives the appeal, I hope he keeps his wits about him. There are some people out there who are really angry, and he wouldn't want to get hurt now, would he...
The only safe and sensible thing to do is to resign.
I think we should all go out to the meadows and fight about it.
Yea i'm up for a fight on the meadows. I think we all know who'd win.
Actually who does everybody think would win a fight between all the candidates
Discuss
Not Nick, cos he's a big Jessie!
Harry is probably heavy, and he and Adam both went to boarding school so they've probably played rugby.
Gabe could be a ninja....
would be a good fight!
well well well... firstly let me congratulate the author of this blog (whom ever you may be) for giving us back a platform for debate. i hope it is not abused the way eusaless was.
now, from the leaked results i've heard- they went like this..
1 adam ramsay
2 harry cole
3 nick ward
4 gabe (i cant remeber his surname, or spell it for that matter!)
ramsay's appealing because having put so much work into the campaign it would be defeatist not to. i defy the other candidates not to have done the same if they were disqualified for whatever reason. what adam did was bloody stupid. he was apparently warned about it before and told that of he did it again, there would be ramifications. it's a shame that in his greed for votes, he committed a n act that ultimately lead to his downfall? do we really want someone running our union who's blind ambition to in at any cost turns him into a cheat?
that is all!
i've heard
1 adam ramsay
2 harry cole
3 gabe arafa
4 nick ward
No one has heard anything! Did Graham Boyack just decide it would be a laugh to tell a few students the results. No. We don't know, we just have to wait and see what happens.
met someone who claimed to be a Gabe supporter today who said "I don't think he should be disqualified. It's not his fault one of his campaign team went to pollock an hour early, she was in first year and didn't know." I said - what utter cock and bull. It's quite simple. Yes, I know that Ward's supporters knocked out of hours (one knocked on my door for starters), but they weren't caught. The rules are the rules, you can't bend them just for some fuckwit. Adam has to learn the hard way. Hate the bastard anyway.
21:55, his supporter wasn't caught merely an hour early. In fact it was at 2pm (and I heard it was Adam who was caught?) when the hours are 6.30pm-8pm(or 8.30, not sure).
22.14 you clearly take us all for chumps with that kind of speculation. If it was adam who was caught, everyone would know and he wouldn't be able to appeal!
Also I thought the problem was that they were keeping everyone awake late at night. At 2pm doesn't hurt anyone!
to 22.26, the point of the rule controlling campaigning at pollock is to protect the residents. it's to ensure that the they aren't continually bombarded with electioneering all the time. campaigning outwith the allocated times IS harmful.
Why isn't this protection from electioneering extended to us outside of the Pollock bubble?
Team Ward and Team Ramsay were all over the place at really unreasonable hours.
Hello,
Id just like to get a few things straight.
1) I am not running this Blog. It would be a excessively stupid thing for me to do.
2) Neither me nor my supporters at any time knocked on Pollock accommodation out of hours. We were very very careful. Indeed on election day itself we stopped in the Crags for a quick pint waiting for 6:30 so we could start and at 8 pm we all called each other to remind us to stop.
3) We did however knock on non pollock accommodation during the day and on one occasion later into the evening. This is allowed in the rules.
We were really meticulous to follow the rules and this made the blatant cheating of Adam so much more painful.
My team and I followed the rules very carefully and ran a very clean campaign which I am proud of no matter the end result.
I am sure Harry and Gabe ran similar clean campaigns, indeed me and Harry were quite gentlemanly about it all!
4) No one knows the results yet so stop being losers and making stuff up to either irritate people or make you feel important.
5) Can we keep the discussions o here to politics? Personal attacks are fun and all but very unpleasant and have been one of the nastier things about this election perpetrated by EUSALESS. Lets not turn this new blog into something as bitter and hate filled eh?
Peace out.
Nick.
nick, i admire you and your team for running such a by-the-book campaign. it's maybe a bit early to say "nice guys finish last" but it's certainly on my mind. and i definitely agree with you that that cheat ramsay has to be disqualified.
but wtf is this about you being best of mates with harry all of a sudden. you interrupted him ('spoke out of turn', some would say) when he was questioned about breaking his clean campaign promise in the presidential debate... it was pretty clear to those watching that you didn't think he'd run a clean campaign.
Nick, how's this for political, I don't like your politics and I think with anymore power than you already have you would be harmful to the Student Union.
I think the idea of a KB Sabb is misguided and dangerous - I think the money saved from Hype could be better spent elsewhere. I think your proposed implememntation of some of the Burgess reports findings is ill-thought out and damaging to poorer students. I think your rhetoric has been just as damaging as EUSA-Less and I think the idea that Edinburgh needs a weighting like London is proposterous (have you ever been south of the border - it's just as expensive in Oxbridge/Bath/Bristol - Edinburgh is nothing special in terms of cost of living).
The one thing I agree with is the lobbying for Council Tax breaks upon graduating, but the rest of your manifesto seems cobbled together with little thought. A series of populist gestures with no real care attached.
That is why people don't want YOU as our President.
Well...
I obviously was quite displeased about the whole eusaless thing. I thought it was really underhand but as much as I may have thought it was a detestable thing to do it wasn't against the rules (even if I wish it was).
Harry and I get on very well in a one on one personal sense is all I mean. I'm sure he'd say the same for me.
I can disagree with someone's politics and indeed sometimes their tactics but still quit enjoy them personally.
On nice guys finish last... I hope not!
To be honest this is just a horrendous process and I just want it over with!
Also the first comment on this post - shouting at Adam - was perhaps a bit unnecessary. We can hopefully deal with this all like grownups, and like a grownup I hope Adam accepts the decision of the Election committee if it finds against his appeal.
Oh and very quickly to the other guy - harsh!
but
- An Edinburgh Weighting tot he student loan is not necessary in isolation. perhaps all areas should be weighted differently?
Also there is a unique scottish solution. Edinburgh is the most expensive place in Scotland. The scottish loans system could be ammended by the Scottish Gov.
The KB sabb is certainly a controversial one. Many other universities have sabbs which represent campuses. I have been in meetings before when we are taking decisions on KB and no one from KB is present, no one that has to use the services that are being discussed. That isn't right. There is 10 000 students in KB with unique learning structures and environments, they need to be represented.
As for the Burgess report. it has been accepted by the higher Education sector and NUS as the blueprint for moving forward. i think it is a brilliant document that recognizes that job markets are more crowded and universities have to add value to degrees. I do want to implement it, some of its suggestions would be quite painful for the university but the only people who would benefit from it in the end is us students.
I hope you didn't vote for me because it seems we have had some serious disagreements.
Also I am never going to answer an anonymous posting again - if people are going to make statements and attacks they should have the guts to put their name to them.
I think that is the best way forward.
Nick
nick, i don't think you should stop answering anonymous posts, apart from ones like "you're an asshole" etc that are obviously not constructive. you provide good comprehensive answers and are not overly defensive. it makes me like you more.
also this is an anonymous forum and i don't think you're going to be able to change that.
keep posting.
Point information:
Edinburgh is NOT the most expensive place in Scotland, average rent for people who don't choose to live in expensive areas like New town is around £290-£300 a month, as I discovered after a long flat hunt this summer. We pay £250 for ours, wheras you can't get a flat is St Andrews for less than £340
The reason why there are fewer KB members involved with EUSA is down to class times more than anything. If you have 30+ hours a week of lectures and labs you really don't have the time for this.
A KB Sabbatical position wont change this.
However great the other candidates are has nothing to do with this. The point is should a presidential candidate be disqualified, and should all those people who voted for Adam have their first preference discounted? As someone who wasn't supporting any presidential candidate, I really don't think they should.
Personally I think it's unreasonable to expect any candidate to be able to exert 100% control over what their campaigners do 100% of the time - especially when they have large teams of helpers. Adam clearly regrets the fact a couple of his supporters inadvertently broke the rules, and I don't have any reason to believe he knowingly allowed/encouraged them to do it.
In any case, it is hardly the crime of the century and I am confident that a couple of people door-knocking in Pollock was never going to be enough to win or lose an election. These campaigns last for weeks and involve dozens of helpers and thousands of voters. Calling Adam "Cheating, lying, filthy scum" for THIS is just ridiculous.
Of course real cheating is unacceptable, but on balance I think it would be a real shame for Adam to be DQ'd over this. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of students who voted in the elections wouldn't want to see someone DQ'd over this either. The importance of Adam's votes being counted vastly outweighs the alleged rule-breaking.
We need to get a sense of perspective. The outcome of the election would not be credible if Adam is DQ'd, not the other way around.
you miss a key point though Peter,
Adam had canvassed pollock for weeks before the election building up a huge amount of support.
its compleltly unfair on the other candidates that they should be though less off by pollock voters when they knocked on doors within the hours when voters said.. well adam was here first and made the efforrt
an effort that was cheating.
adam was warned, and warned again.. and put in writing that he would make sure it would happen again. and he broke this promise.and the final incident was the straw that broke the camels back..
completly fair dq
people keep on making the assumption that everyone who voted for Adam still wants him to win the race even if he cheated. i don't think this is true.
also, just because lots of people support a cheater doesn't mean we should let him win simply because he has support. assuming of course that he did win the popular vote.
lastly, if nick ward and harry cole are to be believed, adam had been warned about cheating before - it sounds like it was a total disregard for rules.
you say adam is deeply sorry about what happened - i say adam is deely sorry he got caught!
Yeah, I do take that point. I have to admit I never heard anything about rule-breaking until the Thursday. Maybe if I had been aware of this ongoing chat about people in Pollock I would think differently.
Nevertheless, (as I understand it) Adam has been DQ'd over this specific incident involving two of his helpers - not over something done previously, nor anything that he personally did. I think my points still stand that it is unreasonable to expect a candidate to be able to exert 100% control over what all his/her helpers are doing; and that, on balance, in this particular instance it is too important for Adam's votes to be counted for his disqualification to be upheld.
I can obviously appreciate the opposite point of view, especially if people had a vested interest in a particular candidate's campaign. I just think it would be a shame for next EUSA president to be chosen in an election where Adam's votes were not counted.
peter, you're totally right about one thing: it would be a shame of all the people who voted for adam basically had that vote disregarded. and adam should have thought of that when running his campaign.
Fuck of Peter you don't know a thing about this.
Adam was warned before - once - about campaigning in Pollock. He signed a paper promising never to do it again.
A few weeks later, two of his campaigners are caught in Pollock out of hours. They probably had some rubbish excuse that since they were first years and didn't live in Pollock they hadn't quite realised the severity of what they were doing. Bla bla bla bla bla.
I have no sympathy. And no-one stupid enough to vote for a cheat like him deserves to have their votes counted quite frankly.
I just feel sorry for the poor wee lassie who did it. She lives in my accommodation block and I know she didn't mean any harm. If it wasn't for her, then Adam would have won. She must be totally devastated.
Oh for Christ's sake don't go playing the sympathy card. I don't care if she is three foot tall and has a cleft lip, she cheated and she must carry the consequences. Dirty little greeny.
She should be ashamed cos she's a cheat and has brought embarassment upon our whole students association. She should obviously have read the rules more carefully. Let Adam swing I say. That'll teach her and his other supporters too that you can't subvert democracy.
Ha. I knew the string of sensible replies to my post would never last, I just never thought it would end so quickly! Only two in a row? Jesus...
Don't worry, I will gladly "fuck of" and return to my life outside of EUSA-related blogs just as soon as I've made a couple of other points. Firstly - so what if Adam was warned about campaigning in Pollock weeks ago? I congratulate the Returning Office on warning him about that, and think it was great Adam signed something to say it wouldn't happen again. But it wasn't Adam breaking the rules a second time, was it? It was someone else doing it, without his knowledge, which means my point still stands and you haven't addressed it. I would have welcomed you engaging with my actual point - but don't bother anymore because I shan't be checking back. Secondly - I would have thought people being first years, not living in Pollock, not knowing the regulations, and not knowing about Adam's previous warning would amount to a pretty good excuse? But what do I know, I'm still wedded and glues to silly principles like reason, proportionality, separating the facts as I understand them from my prejudices and giving people a fair go.
You can get a chuffy on about this all you like, but I was simply echoing what a lot of other people are saying too: that the actual thing Adam got DQ'd for wasn't his fault, and it would be a shame for the election to be affected by it.
Mwah x
relax guys. it may take a wee while, but the appeal decision is coming, and when it does, it will be final.
you do know the appeal decision can be appealled to a special general meeting of eusa. that decision is final. bring it on.
firstly Peter Ramsay, be quiet if you had any idea how stupid you sounded you would zip it.
secondly the rules clearly state the candidate is reponsible for his team. they were in ramsay tshirts with ramsay flyers. there for ramsay is to blame.
harsh. but the rules must be upheld.
denied.
Part of running for president is to manage and run your time.
Adam has failed to do that to the end that other peoples publicity has been destroyed, banners stolen and doors knocked on.
His lack of control has given him an electoral edge.
He cheated. End of. Now where is my firing squad....
Now then,
Mr or Mrs 09 March 2008 13:40...
I don't like Adam Ramsay. He disturbed my post-lecture cup of tea in the DHT canteen and talked at me about politics. Following this incident, I voted for someone else.
However, I couldn't help but react negatively to your comment. I think perhaps most people, having "Cheating, lying, filthy scum" screamed at them by a (I assume) stranger in the street, would probably want to turn round and say something back...but have the self-restraint neither to shout abuse in public, nor to react.
I think that was probably a bit frightening and really rather rude.
Post a Comment