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 motions have been proposed by Miles Layram, a self-described "portering campaigner" and are to be announced at the forth coming UGM.
The motions claim that Ngwena and Humphrys have not campaigned hard enough against portering cuts and increases in the cost of university accommodation.
Allegations include that Ngwena and Humphrys have given YUSU approval to cut portering and have made only token gestures of campaigning for a return of porters.
The timing of the motion seems designed to hurt both officers chances of success in the forthcoming election, but it would appear that it was triggered by events in last weeks Union Council.
In the meeting Layram and the Campaigns officers submitted a document outlining how 24 hour portering could be paid for. A suggested £10,000 subsidy from the Courtyard's profits on top of a 19.5p raise in the cost of accommodation per week would be able to pay for the service.
However Ngwena argued against these plans saying that the Courtyard's profits helped pay for important YUSU services. When it came to voting for what the Council should put in a Union General Meeting motion, proposing a rent increase for students was voted down 20 to 1.
Whether this will affect the duo's election chances remains to be seen, but in the wake of much more serious budget cuts to Academic departments, the return of what many see as a non-issue is unlikely to sway many votes.
Got to admire Miles for sticking to his guns against the big boys.
"but in the wake of much more serious budget cuts to Academic departments, the return of what many see as a non-issue is unlikely to sway many votes."
The most sensible comment I have read so far about this issue.
I honestly think that Ben and Tim have more important things to worry about than porters being around at 3am. This campaign has been Molehill Mountain from day one.
Perhaps the real story is this. Why have Jason Rose and Chris Etheridge, as Campaigns Officers, already put more effort into getting elected this year than they put into their YUSU led campaigns last year?
Actually I think you'll find both Jason and Chris put a tremendous amount of time into this campaign. They have held numerous meetings, put up around 500 posters, spent time researching, held a protest outside Heslington Hall, and had an all night vigil in Vanbrugh, Langwith and Derwent colleges. They are still trying to make progress on the issue at the moment having held an external informal meeting with the three PPCs for York Outer regarding how to proceed.
Thanks for everyone for remaining anonymous... Directly responding to #4; I've put massive amounts of time into YUSU campaigns this year and virtually nothing into the election. I've filled in a nomination form - what effort have I put into "getting elected this year"?!
If you're attacking me for that then you should equally be attacking everyone in YUSU that is running in this election. I mean for starters I haven't even confirmed that I'm running and I haven't got any campaigners... not a great start if I've put more effort into it than the months put into portering, eh?
The use of the word "full" in the first paragraph is totally misleading.
The censure relates to a failure to lobby for ANY portering hours, and I have been the main advocate right the way through for getting a stepping-stone deal in place, with portering ending at midnight or 2am.
(Please see my portering motion, and the censure motions - Believes 17.) By adding that one, inaccurate word "full" Niall has slanted the whole story, and has given someone the chance to rebut something which shouldn't have been in the article in the first place (see the 3am reference in comment 3 above).
Why am I a "self-described" portering campaigner rather than a real one?
There's bias like this right the way through. Fine for opinion columns, but NOT right for news articles...
The censure motions were NOT triggered either by the elections OR the Union Council Meeting. They were triggered by the stuff in the motions.
Most importantly of all, I was NOT overruled by David Levene on the UGM motion-rents point. Niall - you were at the meeting - you SAW the motion being put up on the screen, and that the rents thing is already IN the UGM motion. And I wrote that motion, so I should know what's in it! The only thing David said which went "against" me was to mention that I couldn't propose the specific 25p vote to Council, as I'm not a Council member. Which I knew anyway. David did NOT try to say that the rents thing wasn't already in policy - because it is.
Niall, I know you don't care about portering (you've pretty much said that to me yourself), and that you were part of the Vote No campaign, but if you want to write biased, factually inaccurate opinion pieces then go and set up a political society, or write an opinion column or something. Don't dress all this up as a news report.
Yorker staff - please would one you correct the factual inaccuracies?
Regarding the motions themselves... I just hope that people will find time to read the motions in their entirety (they're long and detailed), and then make up their own minds about whether the premise of a motion of censure - "to express dissatisfaction with an aspect of an Officer's role" - has been met.
Miles
I don't know whether #4 means last year as in last academic year in which case I can't comment, being a fresher and all that, but I have to agree with #5 that Rose and Etheridge have put huge amounts of time and effort into campaigns last term and this term. Having attended meetings and followed closely their campaigns in my short time at Uni so far, I feel I am at least able to say that. In fact, the only time I've heard Rose discuss the elections, is in reference to how to work in campaigns stuff around them.
Thanks Harriet. It would indeed be good to use the YUSU Elections to publicise some YUSU campaigns.
In terms of what Miles has said; indeed, Miles' most recent proposal, which was basically the one that Tim and Ben took to Student Services Committee, was only until Midnight. Even still, most students want a return to full portering, most students think it's an important issue and whilst the Academic cuts are also astonishing, there are plenty of areas that students think should be cut to pay for them. The *only* problem is that the university doesn't agree and that Tim and Ben are the only two that sit in that committee. Thankfully, with the added help (mentioned above) of the MP candidates for our constituency, it looks like we may be making ground but I would like to make the point that "what many see as a non-issue" is incorrect - what a few individuals see as a non-issue and what many people see as a less-important-than-Academic-cuts-issue is more accurate... Trivialising the portering campaign is ridiculous when its intention is to stop people from being attacked around campus. Ta.
How exactly do porters stop anyone being attacked on campus Jason? What can they possibly do in their portering booths if someone is attacked on the way to Halifax, or somewhere out of earshot? What if they're approached with a weapon? And isn't it so much more likely that if anyone is going to be attacked, it's going to be people living off-campus on their way home? What good do porters do then?
Of course they can't stop someone from being attacked off campus or with a gun or in other situations. If you're a student in Vanbrugh and you have to walk in only a towel down past the dark side of Biology to pick up a key because you're locked in your room and are told to go to Wentworth, are on your way back and think you're being stalked then what do you do? Vanbrugh Porters is the obvious choice. You don't have a phone to call security. You can't go back towards Wentworth. Langwith is pretty far.
A student getting locked out of their room whilst showering is pretty likely. It's still massively unlikely that they'll be attacked but the point is that portering reduces that risk by a significant factor. In certain circumstances the presence of a porter in a college nullifies risk of specific problems. They're not going to stop all crime but they're going to stop *some* crime. And if you don't think that stopping *one* rape or *one* mugging is worthwhile then I feel sorry for you! The question is not about whether it's worth the cost. If it isn't, we should find a way to make it cheaper (as I have. Hence the current on-the-table suggestion that costs about a quarter of the previous costs)! But we should ALWAYS look for a way to make campus safer and porters are a good start.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report