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.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The positions of LGBT, Women's, Racial Equality, Policy and Campaigns, Services and Finance, Academic & Welfare and President were all debated.
Each candidate (or set of) was given a three minute speech, followed by rounds of questions applicable to each candidate of every position.
LGBT Candidates, Sarah Fennell & Ben Humphrys, brought up various policies, such as constructing a website and forum, as well as placing emphasis on welfare and representation, and on being held more accountable by their committee.
Women's Candidates, Sophie Harrison & Eilidh McIntosh, announced that they wish to pull on the success of Freshers Week and make it known that "sexism affects men as well as women".
Those competing for Racial Equality Officers, Nadia Aziz & John Apea and Iman Khabireh & Marat Omarov, argued many points. Aziz and Apea drew attention to figures that showed that York has a low proportion of students from ethnic minorities, whilst Khabireh and Omarov said they wanted to build on the success of International Week.
The position of Policy and Campaigns, which is being contested four-ways, allowed for much debate.
First to speak, in an emotive speech, were John Heritage & Chris Etheridge, who said that York was "a campus under threat" and that if elected they "promise to stand outside the library and warn prospective students about budget cuts". They added: "The time for beating around the bush has gone."
Next to speak were Kate Evans & Emily Cousins who said: "We pledge to run an initial campaign on bridges." They plan to educate students on how to "run a UGM motion" whilst, surveying "campus about what campaigns matter."
Lisa Clague & Laura Vitty said that: "University needs to remember whist Hes East is important, we're still here."
Finally, YUSU oldies Tom Langrish & Michael Batula made an impressive speech announcing: "We don't talk about campaigns, we do campaigns and we will campaign for you."
They backed up their statements by adding: "Every campaign we run, we'll aim for a UGM motion to be admitted."
Questions had to be addressed to all candidates. Policy and Campaign candidates were faced with the question: "Are Policy and Campaigns there to do all the crap that the President can't be arsed to do?"
First up, Heritage and Etheridge announced: "That's what the ordinary members are there for". Evans and Cousins said: "We do the things we feel passionate about." The third response came from Vitty and Clague, who said: "We need someone to represent students as a campaign group." Lastly, Batula and Langrish said: "We don't want to be left with the crap, because if Anne-Marie doesn't want to do it, it must be bad."
There is a three-way candidate tie for Services and Finance. Nick Bradley took to the floor first, saying that he is "against University closure, and the YUSU takeover" of Langwith Bar.
Matt Burton, who is seeking an unprecedented second term as Services and Finances Officer, said: "Please re-elect me to do another great job."
The third candidate, James Thompson, told students: "Respect for the Union policy is at an all time low." He said that: "The majority of students are either constantly complaining or not caring."
The debate for the Academic and Welfare position, another three-way tie, began with Al Duffell, who said University Welfare requires "a systematic and pragmatic review of welfare offered".
Charlie Leyland said that she also wanted to place emphasis on academic standards: "We're falling down the academic league tables, we need to investigate why."
She discussed the issue of supervisors who fit the whole scale: "Some don't know your name, whilst some know what you had for breakfast."
Finally, after a three-hour epic, Presidential Candidates Tom Scott, Laura Payne and Nadz Kunwar took to the stage.
Mad Cap'n Tom said: "If they [YUSU Officers] must be concerned in late night altercations outside Derwent, it might be better to chop some limbs off."
He said that if the Goodricke-Vanbrugh Bridge cannot be repaired, then if half of it were demolished, "we can walk them off it".
Second to speak was Laura Payne. She claimed: "A student bar would put us, the students, in control."
She said she wouldd bring "drive and passion" to the role of YUSU president as well as emphasing a need to pressure the university to commit to repairing campus, she emphasised that we shouldn't be second to Hes East. Other ideas included a "promise that the University gives a swimming pool by 2010".
Kunwar said his campaign was about "delivering a changing YUSU, answerable to you" and "open to all". He said that in future he wants sabbs to attend JCRC meetings, upon invitation, to answer questions.
He said: "It is the first time in a while that academia has been a high priority for a President." Kunwar wants to see the roles of Academic and Welfare officer separated as a part of this pledge. He also spoke of a free media policy aiming to “make YUSU a help to our award winning media, not a hindrance.”
'[the media charter] is not as big a deal as he's making out (Vision and Nouse reporters have said as much)'
Chris. I find this really hard to believe. If the papers' writers have said this then fair enough, but they perhaps haven't been involved with the papers under harsher YUSU teams than this one.
Some examples:
i) a former YUSU saab officer cheats on his girlfriend. It is to be published in the gossip section but is removed by YUSU. That may be fair enogh. But;
ii) Vision find an exclusive on a certain estate agent in York. A large majority of their houses are deemed unsafe according to fire regulations. The story is stripped of all references of the company by YUSU due to an agreement between YUSU and the company.
iii) A student is standing for chairship of a college. Vision wishes to publish a story detailing the illegal passed activities of the student (that are well known by students and the University- the student was punished at the time) but the story is pulled by YUSU.
In the last two examples I give, the union has interfered with stories that were IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. It was in the public interest to know which estate agent had dangerous housing, and it was in the public interest to know the activities of someone standing for a public position. These stories were very much about 'student rights' rather than media rights. The fact they were pulled was a big deal for the writers at the time I can tell you.
comment deleted by a moderator I think all this talking about free speech, YUSU pulling stories...etc..is distracting from the positives that arise from the Yorker's independence.
The Yorker has no agenda to abuse the rights or welfare of students. The fact the Yorker is independent allows swift publication of stories. Everything about us is geared towards delivering fast and accurate news.
That is why the Yorker (as of this moment in time) has not signed the media charter, which was in need of review to allow the sort of news coverage we publish.
I can also reiterate Sam Bayley's point that The Yorker is in negotiations with YUSU over a Fair Practice Agreement and all issues of 'students rights' are taken very seriously by us.
Thanks, keep up the posts.
Olly Ward
Operational Director
The Yorker Ltd
In response to 21 and your examples:
1.) Of course it's fair enough. But without the Media Charter presumably that story WOULD have been published regardless!
2.) Fully answered by Chris Northwood.
3.) This is exactly the kind of story I don't think students at York want to see! It sounds like scandal-mongering with a tenous public interest defence. I'm guessing we're probably talking about some kind of drug-taking. So anyone running for a College Chair position would then be open to 'They Smoke Dope' stories appearing in the campus press? It is EXACTLY stories like these that would fundamentally alter student life at York and the atmosphere of campus and in an entirely negative way.
Do we really want to see the journalistic ethics of The News of the World or celebrity-bashing magazines in the campus press? I believe the vast majority of students at York would say NO!
We haven't gone down this road. We shouldn't. And the Media Charter is the last line of defence against it.
Nevertheless #24, point 3 would be in the public interest. The media charter isn't the last defence against it, common sense is.
If no-one would want to see such stories, they wouldn't be published (as they aren't now and weren't previous the the charter). We all know there are plenty of stories of the type you mention out there, it just wouldn't be good for anyone really if they were published. "STUDENT IN DRUG-USE SHOCKER!" - not exactly a winning headline is it?
That doesn't mean to say that there needs to be regulation against publishing such stories.
Mitch, I hear what you're saying and it's not an unreaonable point. But the fact is that we all get carried away sometimes, journalists inlcuded, and can't always rely each other's common sense.
That's why I think having some appropriate rules and regulations as set out in the Media Charter are generally healthier than the alternative of having none.
Occasionally this might be the cause of a little controversy, but generally, like the regulations preventing candidates in YUSU elections from slagging each other off, it serves to keep the peace and keep us all a bit more civilised than we might be tempted to be sometimes.
I really can't be bothered to read all the above posts to see if this has been brought up yet... But the MAIN reason the media charter exists is to stop YUSU being sued!
You need to remember that if Vision or Nouse publish a libelous story, then it's not their editor or journalist that will be liable - it's the union trustees .
Therefore, it's sensible that they retain some right of censorship to prevent them, not members of the media outlet, going to jail.
I would like to point out that the media charter actually provides a good means of avoiding conflict between the newspapers and YUSU and a framework in which they can operate. In other universities, if a newspaper prints something that their SU doesn't like, they don't always have a means to resolve the conflict, so they have a big argument instead. I've heard cases of SU Officers saying "well we fund the newspapers, why should we put up with them printing innacurate, negative stories about the SU and the work that we do?"
In many universities, newspapers don't have independence at all - their main editor is an SU sabbatical officer who then has complete control over the running of the paper and can withhold stories as much as he likes. The result - newspapers that don't hold their SUs to account, that are dead boring, and don't reflect what students actually want to read.
The media charter gives newspapers a lot of freedom but sets sensible limits on what they can and can't do and a system to resolve conflicts that arise. Let's not forget all the stories that haven't been pulled from the media over the years, including many which haven't exactly been favourable to YUSU and its officers.
Also, The Yorker can be independent because it is financially independent. If YUSU was funding it, it would be YUSU that would get sued if they were printing anything libelous. Nouse and Vision can't be financially independent from YUSU because they can't make enough money from selling adverts to cover their printing costs.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report