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.
Bushby was suspended from campaigning between 12pm and 5pm yesterday after a Facebook message was sent out through the group 'York students against the disarmament protests taking place on campus' endorsing his campaign.
Though the message was not sent by Bushby or a member of his campaign team, it is still classed as a breach of election rules.
In a message on the YUSU website, Returning Officer Tom Scott said: "This penalty is not considered punitive; it is to redress the balance after a breach of election rules.
"It would have been significantly harsher had Charles, or one of his official registered campaigners, sent the message, or if it contained a direct call-to-action to vote."
Scott added: "I appreciate this is an unfortunate situation."
The Yorker contacted Bushby for a comment, and received the following response:
"I personally think the suspension is unfair. Once again I have been cited as in the wrong. From the start my campaign has shaken YUSU and once again as they keep a close watch on their radar the cannon has been fired towards myself again.
"I hold no grudges against anyone. Actually the opposite. I am happy to see members of the campus body stepping up and making their views known and heard. This behaviour should be encouraged.
"As a group I have no ties with, this shouldn't be seen as a problem if group members want to discuss their views. Of course if this were to take place within societies of which I was a member, I would be disappointed with this behaviour.
"With an unclear set of rules and regulations from the start, this has made the campaign process a bumpy ride and as such, other candidates are bending the rules in their own way they see fit. Punishment is focused in one direction at the moment.
"On every journey there are bumps along the way, I plan on taking the weekend to regroup with the team and looking forward to hitting the campaign trail again next week and getting back out there talking and meeting with fellow students to understand their concerns and needs."
The other Presidential candidates were also contacted for a comment. Grant Bradley said: "I think that the restrictions placed on campaigners are too tough. If an individual or their campaigners weren't the ones to spread the message then it's unfair that they are penalised.
"However I do understand the reasoning behind it obviously being that candidates aren't given an unfair advantage, but in this instance, the expression of an opinion shouldn't (in my opinion) impact on Bushby.
"As someone outside of the YUSU loop, I believe it's action like this that takes the fun out of the race for office and puts off potential candidates."
Tom Langrish replied: "I am trying not to concern myself with my opponents' campaigns as I want to stay focused on telling students about my experience, my policies and my passion for the role."
At press time, Tim Ngwena had yet to respond.
I overheard your "campaign manager" Dan Taylor say earlier, and I quote, "the facebook message was worth the hit".
At least admit you were in the wrong. Or in more polemic language, you tried to cheat. Now, get on with your campaign, and we'll see how (badly) things go a week Saturday.
Sorry, this has to be said as well. Much like his responses to the questions at Hustings on Wednesday, that response from Bushby is a complete and utter cue-card of an answer. When is this boy going to step up and give a real answer instead of some pre-prepared rubbish?
That's a bit on the harsh side, in this case it looks like it wasn't a decision made by Charles, Dan or anyone else on his team to send the message. Last year rules were broken by the majority of candidates, taken the risk to send emails down mailing lists and hoping for a lenient punishment. Maybe an early DQ this year should put a stop to it (I vote DQ Tim for the dodgy tux at Fusion!)
In fairness, it probably was worth the hit, but I'd have rather had control over whether the message was sent out at all.
The fact is, that on any particular mailing list of which I am a member I could send any number of messages out saying "Vote Tim/Tom/Grant for President" with a link to their group. This would automatically have zero to do with any of them, or their campaign teams yet still result in them getting barred from campaigning for a period of time.
As it happens, I do think the exposure to 350 people of Charles' group was a beneficial thing, but the problem as I see it is that neither Charles or his campaign team had a say in the matter, and wouldn't have done so anyway, because it breaches these ridiculous 1980's style rules.
And "tried to cheat.."
What exactly are you on about? I didn't send the message, nor did anyone in Charles' team. How does that possibly link up with your (probably) typical sweeping statement on the matter? I think it's best for you if you crack on with your own campaign/degree and stop making spineless accusations from an anonymous position.
Charles will be back on the campaign trail, early Monday morning, campaigning for the change that an increasing number of people wish to see.
I think it's absolutely disgraceful that Charles dare says that it's unfair. It's in the rules and it was acknowledged by all people at the rules briefing.
Yes, it's harsh that a message by someone outside the campaign team affects the campaign but it happened last year and neither candidate thought that they were allowed to go and slander YUSU. I think Charles should be disqualified for his continual breaches of the rules, frankly, especially considering that he has gone on to simply lie about YUSU.
"With an unclear set of rules and regulations from the start, this has made the campaign process a bumpy ride and as such, other candidates are bending the rules in their own way they see fit."
Shut up. Everybody knew the rules, even if people disagreed with some of them. They were CLEAR all along. Get over it and stop insulting YUSU when they're running the election the same way as it has always been run.
And that's why Tom Scott says the ban is to redress the balance, not punitive. You've just justified the action Tom Scott did.
And it's not like this kind of ban is unusual - I believe Kunwar got a full 24 hour ban last year for pretty much exactly the same thing.
Oh I agree, I think it was justified within the set rules. My problem is with the rules themselves and don't think they mirror the time in which we now hold elections (21st century and all that).
What? We're in the 21st century? The things you learn...
Surely, by admitting that this was worth the hit, Charles' own campaigners are effectively admitting that the penalty was too lenient.
Good call on that.
Will the returning officer do something about that then?
If it is still "worth the hit" then it logically follows that something extra must be done about it.
I recently received an email promoting the Labour party from someone not affiliated to them at all. It informed me of some local policies and campaigns, that I wouldn't've known about before.
Why should the returning officer penalise the party for the actions of an individual that didn't even do any harm (on the contrary, it was educational).
Similarly I could send my friends an email simply saying VOTE CONSERVATIVE.
It might annoy a few of them, but it's only me expressing an opinion, and the tories wouldn't get into any trouble for it.
If you join a group, you know there is the ability to send mass emails. If you don't want the mail, leave the group.
For people who don't go to the hustings and don't read the websites, a facebook message might be the only communication they get from candidates.
The rules really do need to be changed to bring them up to date with web 2.0. I recall the same thing happened last year over a facebook message. It's just pathetic.
Just for clarification:
I think the penalty WAS fair enough. I have never said anything but that. As far as the rules go, it was and yes, of course I'm happy we got banned for 5 hours and not 24. Duh. Wouldn't you be?
My issue is with the rules themselves. It seems to concern lots of people how out of control candidates are of their own destiny. I could send a 'Vote Langrish' message out to a FB group/UoY mailing list and keep doing it, day in, day out. It's ludicrous and the rules need changing because it's unfair on people like Charles and Nads and Laura last year who had no control over what they were banned for.
Indeed Dan, that's why Tom Scott has said he's going to recommend sweeping changes to the election rules after the elections.
But it isn't as easy as simply removing the clause. As Dan said, he could send out a 'Vote Langrish' email everyday to get Tom banned, but if it the rule simply gets removed, we'll all be getting hundreds of emails from every fb group/society who has a vague preference for one or another candidate. I agree that in some way they are unfair as they are, but its the best of two bad options. Disallow them, and the odd accidental email gets someone banned for a couple of hours. Does that actual do anyone's campaign any major harm? No. Allow them, and every possible email and message will be sent. Facebook groups are allowed so people can send mass emails to those who are interested. No other emails should be allowed.
I think I agree with Susie Plummer - mass facebook messages is a practice that would be regulated by people's patience. If i get too many messages from a group, or messages that i haven't signed up to receive, then I leave the group, leaving an incentive for those in charge of the group to minimise messages sent, and control their content.
On the same argument, candidates who send too many messages will annoy people to the extent where people become less inclined to vote for them. I know I would be, at least.
"As Dan said, he could send out a 'Vote Langrish' email everyday to get Tom banned"
Susie, that would not be the case. Regardless of the rules, common sense also exists. If Dan Taylor, an Official Campaigner for Charles Bushby, was to send out 'Vote Langrish' messages every day, that would be a clear case of electoral sabotage, and Bushby would probably end up getting disqualified.
As Tom Scott, the 'punishment' was meant to be purely punitive as neither Bushby nor any of his campaigners had been responsible for the message being sent out. As Tom Scott stated, if this had been the case, the punishment would have been much more severe.
P.S. Given the vitriol Bushby verbally vomited about Tom Scott's term in office at Hustings, I think Bushby and his campaiginers should stop complaining and be grateful that Tom Scott is mature enough to have not let it affect his decision when he handed out the decidedly light 'punishment'.
second #18
That's absolute rubbish. Bushby should be allowed to criticise Scott's term of presidency without fear of any worse punishment than would be given to other candidates. That's what democracy's about. What you're proposing in your ridiculous statement, I wouldn't expect from any returning-officer. Incidentally, he is acting as a 'returning officer' and not 'President' as far as elections go.
Also, I could send a message out on a mailing list from my hotmail- it's only have to be one. No one would KNOW it's me. I wouldn't of course, but the fact remains that there is the possibility and high chance that it will occur and it's something that needs addressing because it can impact unfairly on candidates. Susie makes a fair point but I think there needs to be an element of common-sense in the whole rules procedure. This particular email was of interest to the people receivng it because it contained Bushby's policy on arms investment that they clearly thought might interest their menbers.
In the revision of rules, these factors should be considered.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report