Student Union leaders impose 'ban' on Remembrance service

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...e-service.html

Student leaders impose 'ban' on Remembrance service

A row has erupted after the University of London Union banned senior officers from representing fellow students at a major Remembrance Sunday ceremony

The University of London Union passed a motion banning senior officers from attending a Remembrance Sunday ceremony in an official capacity.

Student leaders sparked controversy today after banning members from attending a Remembrance Sunday service in an official capacity.

The University of London Union, which represents students across the capital, was branded disrespectful following a decision to effectively bar senior officers from an annual ceremony.

Members of the union’s ruling senate voted in favour of a motion prohibiting officials and staff from the service if they “claim to be representing ULU as an organisation”.

Elected representatives will be able to attend the University of London ceremony in a personal capacity but would not be allowed to speak on behalf of fellow students.

The move comes just 12 months after a similar snub by a senior ULU member.

In 2012, Daniel Cooper, the vice-president, declined an invitation to lay a Remembrance Sunday wreath due to his "socialist principles".

He said at the time that the conflict was a "colonial scramble for possessions, markets and resources amongst the major nations" and "legalised mass slaughter".

His response drew criticism from hundreds of students and sparked a "Dan Cooper Must Resign" Facebook page.

The ULU is the biggest organisation of its kind in Europe – representing 120,000 students from the various colleges that combine to form the University of London.

Michael Chessum, president of ULU, confirmed that he would not be at this year’s event.

The ULU motion passed by the senate said that "while of course many of those who participate have different views, official 'Remembrance' ceremonies and the campaign around them glorify and justify Britain's role in world politics and British militarism, as well as ignoring the treatment of British soldiers by the military command".

It also said that the ULU has a "proud tradition of opposing war and militarism, a tradition we should continue now".

Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Chessum said: "ULU has democratically established a policy on its engagement with official Remembrance which leaves room for officers and students to act freely.

"Either attending or not attending official ceremonies is a political act.

"Personally, I will commemorate the dead killed in war by fighting for peace and challenging the policies of governments, not by standing next to war criminals like Tony Blair on plinths, pretending that these acts are 'triumphant'."

But the move to bar fellow officers in an official capacity provoked a backlash among other students.

Louisa Townson, president of the Conservative Society at University College London, criticised the “outright delusional arrogance of this senate clique that wishes to impose this view on 120,000 students and say no one may represent ULU at the service”.

“I find it amazing that when convenient they shout from the rooftops about the sheer number they represent, but on a topic like this expediently silence them,” she said. “Students overwhelmingly want their union to pay respect, not just to fallen students in years gone by, but to give thanks to those that lost their lives to protect the rights and liberties we hold dear today.”

Remembrance Sunday – held this year on November 10 – traditionally marks the anniversary of the end of hostilities in the First World War. It is held to commemorate the contribution of servicemen and women in the two World Wars as well as other conflicts.

Jay Stoll, general secretary of the London School of Economics Students’ Union, said in a letter to his university’s student newspaper that he owed “everything to those who made the ultimate sacrifice”.

“Whilst clearly people are free to not attend such a service, putting a blanket ban on representatives attending in an official capacity is utterly absurd,” he said.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

Clearly not banning anything, it says right there in words that they simply aren't allowed to suggest that they're attending in an official capacity on behalf of ULU. They can still go.

[RyRy]

Simply put, they should defy the ban. The union has so much more to lose than the person defying this ban, for one its credibility (whats left of it) & its student base. And I've only just noticed after re-reading that one name stood out, Michael Chessum. No wonder, wanting to grab some headlines...

What I want to know is who put forward the motion, and how many people voted for & against the motion. I'm actually quite disgusted by it all, next they'll be banning poppy donation boxes from the union shops. That's not even an absurd thing to say given whose involved.

[FlyingJesus]

Why are you disgusted by people not being allowed to flash badges at an event that isn't about them?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Clearly not banning anything, it says right there in words that they simply aren't allowed to suggest that they're attending in an official capacity on behalf of ULU. They can still go.

It's a ban in other words. For example my union is now considering banning aka removing the Sun newspaper from sale at the union shop because page 3 apparently offends some sensitive so and so's - not that they've released any details of how many many complaints they've had about the paper being on sale. But yeah, they argue that it's technically not a ban aka censorship as all they're doing is removing it from sale yet common sense tells me that ignoring the top selling newspaper in the country is a sneaky type of censorship.

But whether it's this, banning The Sun or that Blurred Lines song: the lunacy of students unions continues to amaze.

[Inseriousity.]

Why would anyone need to go to a remembrance event representing a student union anyway? In what way is their presence even needed?
Despite that, I don't really think a student union is something that someone's personal political views should dictate the entire union. It's there to represent the students and fight for their needs not as a mouthpiece of the leader's "socialist principles"

[FlyingJesus]

No it's still not a ban of any kind. They are not being stopped from attending anything, just from acting like they're representatives of ULU if they do - something which you generally need permission to do in the first place anyway if you're planning to attend an event in an official capacity. It's really not a big deal at all and has nothing in common with ridiculous decisions to ban The Sun

It's there to represent the students and fight for their needs not as a mouthpiece of the leader's "socialist principles"

Which is precisely why ULU top names don't want people to go to political events claiming to represent the entire student body

[RyRy]

It's a ban in other words. For example my union is now considering banning aka removing the Sun newspaper from sale at the union shop because page 3 apparently offends some sensitive so and so's - not that they've released any details of how many many complaints they've had about the paper being on sale. But yeah, they argue that it's technically not a ban aka censorship as all they're doing is removing it from sale yet common sense tells me that ignoring the top selling newspaper in the country is a sneaky type of censorship.

But whether it's this, banning The Sun or that Blurred Lines song: the lunacy of students unions continues to amaze.

Banning The Sun was probably the best thing Student Unions have done. Scummy little paper, and I'm not talking about the no to page 3 campaign unions are all about.

@FlyingJesus; I don't think the ban itself is any problem, nobody is really gonna go and lay a wreath on behalf of a university union, however it's the fact they've put a ban on people doing so in an official status which people are miffed about. It's not necessarily going to affect anybody, but it's a symbolic thing to do. It's also a way to grab headlines, Michael Chessum loves the headlines oh yes he does!

[Inseriousity.]

That doesn't seem to be the motivation for that course of action though.

official 'Remembrance' ceremonies and the campaign around them glorify and justify Britain's role in world politics and British militarism, as well as ignoring the treatment of British soldiers by the military command".

It also said that the ULU has a "proud tradition of opposing war and militarism, a tradition we should continue now".

Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Chessum said: "ULU has democratically established a policy on its engagement with official Remembrance which leaves room for officers and students to act freely.

"Either attending or not attending official ceremonies is a political act.

"Personally, I will commemorate the dead killed in war by fighting for peace and challenging the policies of governments, not by standing next to war criminals like Tony Blair on plinths, pretending that these acts are 'triumphant'."

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it's still not a ban of any kind. They are not being stopped from attending anything, just from acting like they're representatives of ULU if they do - something which you generally need permission to do in the first place anyway if you're planning to attend an event in an official capacity. It's really not a big deal at all and has nothing in common with ridiculous decisions to ban The Sun

They're using Remembrance Sunday as a snub so they can make some headlines. Snubbing such an event for their minority views is pretty low, even for a Students Union.

Banning The Sun was probably the best thing Student Unions have done. Scummy little paper, and I'm not talking about the no to page 3 campaign unions are all about.

Point is, if you don't like The Sun then don't buy it.

I can't stand the Guardian or Daily Mirror, so I don't read or buy them. Works well for me instead of trying to dictate what 13,000 odd other students should buy and read.