Anna Mckay shares a recipe perfect for celebrating Chinese New Year
Ding Huang demonstrates the art of paper cutting
A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
Laura Reynolds looks at the habits of exam-weary students
In a statement released on the YUSU website, Bretts explained that he believed some of Pickard and Saul’s comments were in breach of YUSU’s Equal Opportunities Policy.
Bretts added: “I firmly believe that elections are about giving members of YUSU the opportunity to choose the people who will represent them, and I feel that it is vital that union members are given the opportunity to vote for the candidates of their choosing, even where those candidates do not align with the prevailing view.”
Bearing this in mind, Bretts has taken the decision to ban Pickard and Saul from campaigning between 9.00am today and 4.30pm on 12th March. Though they will not be removed from the ballot, during this period they must cease all physical and digital campaigning and will not be allowed to attend any group or society meetings in order to campaign.
Pickard and Saul faced a hostile reception at Tuesday’s Hustings, as their policies seemed to offend the majority of those in attendance. Their policies included banning fat women from campus, having attractive women on the plasma screens around campus at all times and implementing “male only” parking spaces in order to discourage women from driving. They also used “death to men” as a slogan and suggested that all men were rapists.
Janey Stephenson and Charlotte Phillips, who are running against Pickard and Saul for the position, were well supported by the crowd on Tuesday evening. Their key policies include diminishing the stigma that feminism carries, increasing male involvement in campaigns and working closely with other YUSU liberation groups.
One student praised Stephenson and Phillips on their Facebook campaign group for the way they dealt with the controversy Pickard and Saul caused; the student wrote: “I wish you the best of luck with your campaign and congratulations on handling hustings with such dignity.”
Why are they treating YUSU campaigns as such a joke? We should take YUSU elections seriously and they should show some respect to the other candidates who are putting in some serious hard work and effort. Their slogan 'death to men' shows how little they have even considered what is coming out of their mouths. They are arrogant young men who seem to think that the position of women's officer is a joke. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I want to stress that I am not a feminist and I am not expressing my opinion from this stand point. I simply think that they have shown a total ignorance of issues surrounding men and women. If they truly think that sarcasm and frankly childish policies will get them elected then I question their competency to run for a YUSU post.
Good Luck to the opposition
They are very sad little boys who seriously need to grow up and get a life...I mean, have they nothing better to be doing- such as their degrees? I think banning them from campaigning will stop them offending people as they have been doing.
As to their policy on attractive women being displayed on plasma screens and ugly women being banned? Well, from a female perspective, having seen what THEY look like, I think they should seriously reconsider banning ugly people! LOL!
Good luck to the opposition- 2 bright women with excellent policies.
boys- grow up.
Perhaps a different photo to go with this article could be found...? I find everything about their campaign disgusting (at best) and so having one of their posters hosted on The Yorker does not seem very appropriate, what with the campaigning ban especially.
They have just proven how important the position of women's officer actually is. By trying to undermine the position they have actually asserted the need for it at this university. If there are people as crass and ignorant as them walking around campus we certainly need good women's officers to show them that their opinions are not acceptable!!
Why do we have a Women's Officer and no Men's Officer? Women aren't a minority whose needs require any more special representation than those of men. (Although if it were up to me there would be neither.)
And #1 "Why are they treating YUSU campaigns as such a joke?" Ermm... because student politics in general is a bit of a joke, usually undertaken by people who take themselves too seriously, make unrealistic promises and end up delivering next to nothing? Just a thought.
Regardless of their performance at hustings, I don't understand the ban. Obviously their attempt at humour (and that's all it really amounts to - let's not get carried away) has fallen embarrassingly flat, so we can safely assume that the election results will mirror their misjudgment.
Resorting to what is effectively censorship instead of allowing them to dig their own hole seems odd in a democracy. You don't ban Jim Davidson from the airwaves because he's a tit - you just switch off and ignore him when he speaks.
Surely the ban is symbolic of YUSU's wish to take elections seriously? If candidates treat hustings as a joke then why should they be allowed to continue? These are positions of power with students money in their remit - I don't think a subjective 'ugly' ban is going to help students. I see the joke, but to be fair I think my degree is supported incredibly badly - in terms of teaching support - why aren't we addressing the integral problems of York Uni? Why do we have people making a joke of elections when there are more pressing matters at hand? It completely ridicules YUSU positions and doesn't further their image at all. Complete waste of time.
Obviously people would still have been offended but I think they probably would have gone down much better if they weren't so bloody charmless. I saw the Facebook group and I must admit it made me chuckle but bloody hell I didn't realise they were serious about what they were saying!
Just out of interest, what would people think of women's committee being instead called 'gender equality committee' or something like that? Personally I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few blokes out there who fully agree with everything that the women's committee stands for, but are reluctant to get involved because they think it's purely for women.
Women's Committee is an NUS committee, and so can't be changed without NUS consent, which is unlikely! I think there'd be a lot of demand for a Gender Equality Committee. I also think that having a seperate Men's Committee would be beneficial, but think that most discussions on gender involve both male and female input. Therefore! How about two seperate groups that meet seperately once a week to address issues some people may find difficult to talk about in a mixed-sex group, and meet up together once a week to discuss issues that concern both sexes? Plan.
#9 that's the most sensible and constructive contribution to this debate in over 3 years.
It's great to see the 2 serious candidates aren't running on a men=oppressors ticket and hopefully mens' issues will be given an equal voice at some point in the future. Similarly their stance on inclusion should alleviate some of the fears that womens issues on campus are only discussed by a group of radical feminists.
It's just so sad to see Mr Fruit and Veg rigging this election though. The job title is 'Democracy and Services' yet obviously in his mind it's OK to ignore the first bit of his title. Anyone should be able to stand for a union position, not just those with favourable views. Bretts has decided the winner based upon his own personal view as to what 'offensive' means.
We already know he's failed to provide the Services he promised (cash machine in halifax, fruit and veg stall) and now he's failed to uphold democracy. Poor show all round really.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report