Hackwood ousted by eight votes

Grace Fletcher-HackwoodGrace Fletcher-Hackwood will be forced to resign

YUSU Academic and Welfare Officer Grace Fletcher-Hackwood will be forced to resign immediately after losing a vote of no-confidence by 8 votes.

In a press release YUSU President Anne-Marie Canning, said: “The students have spoken on this one, though the result was very, very close. The outcome does worry me, because we’re now without an Academic & Welfare Officer and aren’t likely to have the job covered until July. However, we’re confident that we can make sure that students don’t lose out – it’s just going to mean more pressure on Union Officers and staff”.

Dan Taylor, the student who proposed the motion, said: “I am delighted. Students have made the correct decision I thank Grace for the good work that she has done in the past, but clearly this event has shown that she is unable to carry on in the future. Students have spoken.” Taylor tabled the motion after he was physically assaulted by Fletcher-Hackwood during a campus event last month.

At the time of going to print, Fletcher-Hackwood was unable to comment.

The UGM saw an unprecedented turnout of 1440 votes, and the removal of Fletcher-Hackwood is the first ever succesful no-confidence vote against a Union officer, according to Union Manager Jolene Jesseman.

Taylor has been forceful in his condemnation of Fletcher-Hackwood, using Facebook discussions, text messages and vocal criticism to rally support for his motion. “Her entire reputation has been tarnished by this, it undeniabily affects her ability to carry out her mandate to the students of this institution in the future,” Taylor said in a speech at the UGM.

Flyers distributed on Thursday morning by Fletcher-Hackwood supporters, detailing quotes from Deputy Vice-Chancellor Trevor Sheldon, Taylor and Fletcher-Hackwood herself, called on students to ‘Not get caught up in a personal vendetta: Vote to give Grace another chance.’

Controversy surrounded the motion following a heated debate during last Thursday’s UGM. At the event, YUSU Student Development and Charities Officer Joey Ellis called for Hackwood’s dismissal, saying that she felt her colleague’s actions were “unacceptable” and “intolerable”.

YUSU Societies and Communications Officer Sam Bayley, however, stated that Fletcher-Hackwood’s removal could only be temporary, should a sabbatical officer call for an appeal. This would be voted on at an EGM, and would constitute a final say on the issue. It is presently unknown whether this action will be undertaken.

Following Fletcher-Hackwood’s dismissal, students requiring welfare support are advised to contact YUSU Academic and Welfare Co-ordinator Mel Nichol. She can be contacted on [email protected]


  1. 7 Feb ’08 at 2:09 pm

    Tyke in Exile

    Having no one in the role of Academic and Welfare will be far more detrimental to the students of York, than to have someone fufil the role who did something wrong, admitted it and appologised. More fool the students of York for voting against Grace as it will be the students who suffer without her.

    However, I must say, it’s nice to see that those able to vote haven’t been as apathetic as usual!

    Reply Report

  2. 8 votes…

    Who ever said your vote doesn’t count?

    I wonder what people who didn’t vote because they didn’t get around to it are feeling like right now.

    Reply Report

  3. 7 Feb ’08 at 2:30 pm

    James MacDougald

    Dan Taylor’s reason for tabling the vote of no confidence may have been petty and spiteful, but inasmuch as everyone knew that his was an agenda driven by personal loathing and political incompatibility, there was something honest about that.

    The motivations of those supporting the motion were, however, uglier and more reprehensible. I don’t whether to laugh or cringe when I see people complaining that they feel ‘let down by Grace’, or suggesting that her actions – in some mysterious way – render her less capable of doing her job. What utter bullshit! This sort of repellant false piety should be condemned in the strongest terms.

    Reply Report

  4. Does anyone know if one of the sabbatical officers will call for Grace’s appeal?

    Reply Report

  5. Any other result would have set an awful precedent. This demonstrates that despite the strength of the self-interested YUSU buddy system, the voice of the students of York will not be dismissed and regarded as a side-show to the careers of those who seek public office.

    Reply Report

  6. Despite not knowing Grace personally, I have followed this story, like a lot of others, very closely. Whilst I don’t agree with her politics, she is clearly a deeply committed sab officer, and I am incredibly disappointed with the result of this vote. Of course her actions were wrong, and yes, her apology was weak, but let’s face it, Dan Taylor is the most vinidctive idiot on campus. He wanted her out for personal reasons only, whatever he might say. I saw with my own eyes the comment on the Facebook group where he made personal and deeply hurtful allegations against her, even if he did quickly delete it (and deny it) afterwards.
    She should have been disciplined, not forced out. She was in a position of trust and she abused that trust, but it was an isolated incident that only made the such a fuss because Taylor and his Tory cohorts chose to play nasty on so many levels.
    I for one hope she appeals.

    Reply Report

  7. James MacDougald- I’m guessing you voted against the motion then? It doesn’t surprise me at all to see you trying to blacken the convictions and opinions of others as ‘petty’ and ‘bullshit’.

    Just lik Fletcher-Hackwood, you aren’t interested in understanding others’ views before challenging them, you just want to lash out.

    Good to see Fletcher-Hackwood’s supporters showing their true colours (yet again)

    Reply Report

  8. 7 Feb ’08 at 3:06 pm

    Matty Ashcroft

    Pretty ludicrous this.

    At the end of the day, if someone provokes someone they’re liable to be hit, it happens, time and again. Maybe Mr Taylor’s pride was dented a bit too much. He’s come out of this looking like an odeous, vengeful and spiteful pathetic little man. Grace Fletcher-Hackwood was wrong in using violence, but is it worth being kicked out of a job for, nope. Pathetic!

    Reply Report

  9. 7 Feb ’08 at 3:09 pm

    Tim Gallagher

    So nancy boy Taylor gets his wish.

    Hopefully Hackwood can be successful in an appeal, regardless of what she may or may not be like, stuff like this happens. Just seen a facebook post on the vindictive group he set up to get her out which proclaims “A socialist head has rolled”. Typical example of the posh boys grouping together as we see so often at this University. Not good enough!

    Reply Report

  10. The sabbatical officers will decide shortly whether to call an appeal EGM – this will be dependant on Grace’s decision as well as the other sabbs, so please watch this space…

    Reply Report

  11. Did anyone stop to think that Taylor, in fact nobody, negelcted to actually give an alternative to welfare once Grace was gone? The sabbs have enough on their plates at the moment without trying to run a full-time job between them – simply put, they won’t be able to because the workload would be too much, so welfare will suffer and students are going to lose out now. Anybody genuinely interested in student welfare, even if they have personal issues against Grace, would have bit their tongue and voted for her to stay, because she’s done a great job and now we have effectivly no replacement.

    I’m not sure if the significance of the issue has hit people yet either – this isn’t just a case of a non-sabb like myself losing our position, where at the end of the day it’d frankly give us more free time if we got no-confindenced. Grace is a full-time employee, and has just effectively been fired. With no notice (since nobody knew how the voted would go). She doesn’t get a student loan, so Dan Taylor’s personal vendetta has effectively deprived her of her only means of living. How is she supposed to pay her rent, buy food, etc, with no money? Eight votes is too narrow a margin to take away someone’s income from them. Especially since one of those who voted to no-confidence her informed me he voted twice, using different accounts. I think an EGM needs to be held, with people fully informed of the consequences of Grace losing her job (both for her and for us students), as like I said 8/6 votes is a ridiculously small margin to end up making someone unemployed.

    Reply Report

  12. I accept your point Chris about welfare and I think it is sad that students will suffer. I also dislike a lot of things that have been said on both sides and the way both campaigns have been conducted. I do not think that the fact that Grace would lose her job and income should be an issue. If you were an employee of a company and you hit someone at work you would probably be dismissed for gross misconduct without any notice or finacial settlement. You could not then go to an employment tribunal and say that you should get your job back because you can not pay your rent. They would say you should of thought of that before you hit someone. On that argument you could never dismiss someone no matter what they had done as they could always use the argument that they have no money to live on.

    Reply Report

  13. 7 Feb ’08 at 4:15 pm

    Mygene Sarwet

    Shame she didn’t have the decency to resign immediately.

    Reply Report

  14. 7 Feb ’08 at 4:29 pm

    James MacDougald

    Lawrence –

    As it happens, I did vote against the motion. But my support for Grace ends there. I share none of her views on student politics or politics in general, and I have nothing but contempt for her particular brand of illiberal militant socialism. I would have voted her out on these grounds long before I ousted her for cuffing an obnoxious student.

    But the argument that her officership is no longer tenable because of an unrelated incident is obviously absurd. We do not look to sabbatical officers for moral guidance – their personal conduct and their competence in office are separate matters. What is to be gained by mixing them up?

    Reply Report

  15. I think this is the best possible outcome. If a lecturer or tutor hit a student then there would be immediate calls for his or her resignation. I don’t see why a sabbatical officer or student in a responsible position should be treated in a different way.

    Another point to consider is the fact that if there were to be an incident in which a lecturer or tutor hit a student, then Grace as the Welfare Officer would undoubtedly be involved in the campaign to force them to resign. Can you imagine how damaging this incident would be to the legitimacy of any future campaign to force a member of staff to resign?! It would be an utter joke.

    Reply Report

  16. 7 Feb ’08 at 4:41 pm

    James MacDougald

    I would add, Lawrence, that your own small-mindedness prompted you to ‘lash out’ at me as a Fletcher-Hackwoodite, not stopping to consider that it is possible to disagree with public vindictiveness even if one dislikes the person at whom it is directed. That you are so willing to reduce the affair to partiality and generalisations about taking sides suggests that your vote was cast against Grace herself, and not her conduct on this particular occasion.

    Reply Report

  17. The students have spoken. I am proud that I gave them an opportunity to speak on the matter and they have done so in numbers that our university should be proud of.

    Grace’s position is simply untenable after hitting a student and that’s what it boils down to. Yet again, people are quick to point to my alleged ‘name calling’ and ‘personalising’ of this debate, but one only has to look at the wall above to see whose ‘camp’ is resorting to name-calling because they 1) have not a single decent credible argument left, and 2) because the vote did not go their way.

    As for an appeal, I think the students have made their opinion clear on this and it should remain that way. YUSU initiating this would look extremely bad, as it would be supporting the minority of votes and going against the views of the students they claim to represent. When someone’s time is up, it’s up and that is the long and the short of it.

    Grace did wrong- I thank her for her past ‘good work’ and committment to her position, but this incident rendered her position untenable. I am afraid, for all those who do not like it, that this is democracy in action. Amazing how it’s biggest supporters hate it when it does not go their way eh?

    Reply Report

  18. Dan,

    To clarify, the consitution says that sabbatical officers are entitled to call an EGM and we will do so if we deem it necessary.

    I’m sure you’ll agree that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and appeals process, so if Grace wishes it one of us will probably call it.

    People involved with the motion were aware of this clause at the time and we made it known to the media that it would be invoked if we deem it appropriate.

    I can assure you that this is simply about being fair to everybody.

    If anyone has any questions on this please email myself or Anne-Marie.

    Reply Report

  19. Dan, if the vote had been one with a high percentage, I would agree with you that an appeal is pointless. But she lost by 8 VOTES! You can claim victory, but certainly not with the confidence you display in your comment. All your nice talk about ‘thanking her for her good work’ is clearly a belated attempt to try and appear fair.

    ‘Amazing how supporters don’t like it when it doesn’t go their way’??? If it had been an 8 vote win in Grace’s favour, you’d be howling today about her position was untenable regardless.

    Grace might have come off badly with this fiasco, but believe me, you’ve come off a lot worse.

    Reply Report

  20. A vote is a vote. I frankly could not care how I came out of this. I am proud that I gave students the chance to vote on something clearly they felt strongly about. The students have spoken. To undermine them would be harsh to say the very least.

    Reply Report

  21. I think one very sad thing during the campaign is the hypocricy of certain students. We’re seeing people that normally put motions to UGMs on principles and see pragmatism as a second thought throw all those principles away and support someone because they are a friend.

    If a lecturer had hit a student there would be uproar by exactly the same people. I think those that campaigned against her no confidence should look themselves in the mirror and see just how unprincipled they are.

    I am not jumping for joy that she lost the vote, but I am pleased that the right decision has been made. There are always people that can fill the role, there are other paid officers such as the Union Manager and if necessary they can hire in part time staff to help. The whole pragmatism argument is both pathetic and weak.

    Reply Report

  22. To clarify again… if we DO run the EGM, it won’t be undermining students, as it was clearly explained to everyone at the UGM, in the media and to the proposer beforehand that this was an option that could be explored.

    Reply Report

  23. 7 Feb ’08 at 6:05 pm

    Tomáš Ruta

    So many students showed they do NOT want her to continue. They didn’t think it was enough to censure her. They wanted her out.

    Forget about the 8-vote difference. Just ask yourself whether a Welfare Rep can continue in her function when so many people RESOLUTELY said they don’t TRUST her anymore.

    Reply Report

  24. 7 Feb ’08 at 6:27 pm

    James MacDougald

    Michael –

    Pragmatism is definitely the wiser choice. In principle, we should respond to an act of violence; and in practice, we should learn to moderate our response so that it is proportional to the crime. Most people who objected to Grace’s dismissal did so not because they felt she was innocent – even she did not maintain that – but because we felt the punishment did not fit the crime. Would you give a speeding motorist a life sentence?

    A cuff around the ear deserves, in response, a slap on the wrist. She should have been censured, as her YUSU peers suggested. Not that she needs disciplining – her behaviour following the ‘assault’ betokened more than a little contrition. Nevertheless, that would seem a just and temperate reaction to a paltry incident which, as far as anyone can tell, was a one-off and completely out of character. It’s not like she poses a threat to public safety!

    This is all about little boys and girls playing at being adults. The sanctimonious and very immediate condemnation of GFH, followed by the long hard winter of pious remonstration and tut-tutting, evidences a student body whose actions and reactions are informed, not by common sense, but by the logic of soap-operas. We all want to behave theatrically with regard to campus affairs because they are, ultimately, so desperately trivial. Now those who feel that GFH was an asset to the Student Union have lost out, and the only winner is Dan Taylor’s pride.

    You can have your principles when you learn to think outside of them. As for consistency regarding lecturers – this is not a school. A drunken member of staff slapping a student would simply be one legally-mature human being hitting another legally-mature human being, and would be dealt with, if at all, on the model of normal legal proceedings. Similarly, in that instance, I think I’d cast my judgment according to the particular details of the case, instead of looking at it through a pre-fabricated template of principles. That, I think, is justice.

    Reply Report

  25. Less than two hours after losing her job, Grace Fletcher Hackwood presented YOUR:Support Live on ((URY)). She discussed the UGM and gave her reaction to the motion of no confidence being passed. You can listen again to the show at http://ury.york.ac.uk

    Reply Report

  26. Michael, if a lecturer b*tch-slapped a student outside a bar in town, both were drunk and the slap followed an argument and if police was not called in and the assault was not as much as recorded (leave alone proven) – there would be absolutely no disciplinary action against the lecturer (and nor there should be).

    However, having voted against the motion (and against the censure), I have to agree with Tomáš: now that so many students have voted to no-confidence Grace her position is unfortunately untenable (EGM or no EGM).

    PS I do however think that b*tch-slapping Dan Taylor is well worth a minimum wage job!

    Reply Report

  27. Sam, I disagree. Saying at the UGM is still announcing that if you want this person out, they will still have a chance to get back in. Seeing as there was no real discussion about the rules it hardly makes it any more fair.

    An EGM is far less democratic as it is limited to those able to attend an event on one evening. UGMs are more open, allow a secret ballot and for people to think about their decision.

    She has lost credibility, she has been rejected by the students and I’d go as far as to say any student union officer trying to subvert democracy would deserve a no confidence motion of their own.

    Reply Report

  28. Sam,

    Of course an EGM will be undermining students. 656 students say she should resign. 6 Students think she shouldn’t. That doesn’t sound very democratic to me…

    Why have a vote at all if you’re going to have an EGM because you got the result you didn’t want.

    Reply Report

  29. I’m not sure the sab officers could vote for the EGM. Of course they could in theory but the whole point of the UGM’s outcome suggests that the students have spoken; to launch an appeal would be seen as the union going against the voice of it’s electorate.

    Reply Report

  30. Dear Mr Taylor. You are not responsible for the gift of democracy. Please cut out this reprehensible triumphalism. It does not become you.
    Some students have voted, by no means all of them. They will have exactly the same opportunity to vote again, should Fletcher-Hackwood appeal, and should you rally the same support you did first time round, you should have nothing to fear in terms of their opinions being undermined. Democracy does not happen once and then stand forevermore.
    Name-calling is a fun and long-established means of gaining political power, so long as you aren’t on the business end. It would be sage advice to stay on your best behaviour from now on; popular opinion, much like the media, has a habit of being rather fickle.

    Reply Report

  31. Look; it’s over. Let’s cut the mud-slinging, recognise the decision that has been made by York students, and leave it at that. It really is descending into a complete and utter farce whilst you all carry on as you do. This is my final say on the matter. Grace has been removed for hitting a student. That is the judgement passed by the University of York. That is it. The End.

    Reply Report

  32. 7 Feb ’08 at 7:34 pm

    Matthew Severn

    I should come clean and admit that I really couldnt decide how to vote on this… so I didn’t. I voted on all the other motions, but on this… I am not a ruthless person I guess.

    I should add that now the motion has democratically passed, it must be accepted. I can’t see the grounds for one.

    Reply Report

  33. 7 Feb ’08 at 7:35 pm

    Matthew Severn

    Grounds for an appeal, i should have said

    Reply Report

  34. “the voice of the students of York”
    “The students have spoken.”
    “views of the students”
    “So many students showed they do NOT want her to continue.”
    “so many people RESOLUTELY said they don’t TRUST her”
    “she has been rejected by the students”

    The use of this kind of language is completely unjustified. The reality of the situation is that 700 students out of the 14000 enrolled in the University voted to remove Grace from office. 5% of the student population want her out, just under 5% want her to stay, and an overwhelmingly huge 90% majority simply do not give a shit.

    Both sides of this argument have huge delusions as to the significance of their actions.

    Reply Report

  35. A student welfare officer hitting a student?

    Surely it is now time to give the offending welfare officer, now that she is at a loose end, the position of STUDENT OFFICER FOR IRONY.

    Reply Report

  36. 7 Feb ’08 at 7:45 pm

    Lewis Bretts

    Um…Actually. ‘Algernon’ It is an entirely different, far less democratic process;

    Its not secret, and many students won’t have an opportunity to vote. Only those who are able to attend the meeting are able to vote, those who work, or those who, like me aren’t currently in York will be disenfranchised.

    Reply Report

  37. 7 Feb ’08 at 7:47 pm

    Charlie Dyson

    Regarding Chris Swan’s sympathetic comment: I think you’ll find that if she worked in a business and hit a customer, her inability to pay her rent would certainly not be a deterrent to firing her.

    1440 students voted in a motion to remove her from office. The margin by which they did so is completely irrelevant. It is implicit in the nature of a democratic union that we abide by the decision of our members. An EGM would constitute the decision of over a thousand students being potentially overruled by a room full of a only a few, voting (according to the constitution) by show of hands – a farce YUSU can ill afford.

    If Ms Fletcher-Hackwood has any sense she’ll there’s only one way to preserve her dignity: leave with due grace.

    Reply Report

  38. February 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
    “… This demonstrates that despite the strength of the self-interested YUSU buddy system, the voice of the students of York will not be dismissed and regarded as a side-show to the careers of those who seek public office.”

    Tom – Interesting point you make about the YUSU buddy system, seeing as another Sabb submitted a statement supporting the motion, and at least one former YUSU Sabb stuck the boot in.

    In this case, it may appear to exist for some YUSU officers, but not have the blanket coverage of all YUSU officers that is traditional believed…

    Reply Report

  39. 8 Feb ’08 at 3:16 am

    brywn Webster

    i think the real question here is….
    Was W.G. Grace the greatest Cricketer of all time and would he cope in the modern game?

    Reply Report

  40. Why is this debate even carrying on? It is like discussing the outcome of a general-election when one side has taken a majority of seats: futile. The students voted on the issue and they voted for her removal. That is really all their is to say- it seems the only ones still talking are echoing this point or just want to have a go at Taylor. He gave us all the chance to vote on it and it was then out of the guy’s hands. The students have decided and that is the end of it.

    Reply Report

  41. James MacDougald; hear, hear.

    Reply Report

  42. 8 Feb ’08 at 12:56 pm

    Matthew Jeynes

    As Sports Editor, I must say that I completely agree with brywn Webster’s intriguing view, and would ask him to give his own points for and against the success of the great W.G. in the modern game.

    Reply Report

  43. Dan Taylor
    February 7th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    “This is my final say on the matter.”

    So much of a final say, Mr. Taylor and co. has gone to the York Press…

    Reply Report

  44. For the info of everyone, I did not go to the York Press nor did they ask me for a comment. Just to clear that up.

    Reply Report

  45. 9 Feb ’08 at 7:11 pm

    Press Reader

    Bollocks, Dan. You lied and lied and lied again throughout this campaign, why should anyone believe you now?

    Reply Report

  46. “i think the real question here is….
    Was W.G. Grace the greatest Cricketer of all time and would he cope in the modern game?”

    I’m sure he would’ve coped far better than England did today…

    Reply Report

  47. I’d like to think that not knowing personally either of the people most powerfully involved in this issue I could remain fairly detached. But truthfully I’ve never been so disappointed in York students -not at the outcome of the vote which has some justification and at least the illusion of due process – but at the whole tenor of the campaign conducted against Grace Fletcher-Hackwood. The language employed against her has been histrionic, abusive and thoroughly immature. I can’t condone her actions but I’m sorry for her. I think I would have been far less sorry for her if Dan Taylor’s campaign had been conducted with more dignity and less cheap shots. But as it is, I regret that a voice of unreason has been so successful. At least now we can hopefully put the issue behind us.

    Reply Report

  48. Just in response to the post above me:

    I keep hearing this being flung around by various individualsd that this campaign was run ‘personally’ and abusively. I entirely reject that claim being made. I would ask you to show me an example of when I have used terminology that fits your assertion. I have never name-called Grace, referred to her position rather than name as often as possible and did not distribute any literature as her support group did, as if it were being run like some form of political campaign. In contrast, have a look at the walls of the two facebook groups and see what side the name calling and personalised nature of attack has come from. I have been called everyname under the sun by most individuals who have not a single political argument left to debate sensibly. This personal attack initiated by me has, I am afraid, be conined in the realms of your imagination. Look at my writings on the matter in comment sections and on the facebook wall. I have tried to get this to the bottom-line basics: YUSU paid officer hitting a student and needing to resign for reasons iterated over and over and over again. I did this at the UGM- Grace did not. All the justifications of the attack (including Grace’s apology) were centered on the fact that I was the ‘victim’ of the action, as well as the fact that Grace is only 5ft5 and me a lot larger. That is personalising the campaign and it has certainly not come from me.

    I can say that throughout, I have not name-called or said anything without evidence of some sort. I think one of the reasons the vote went the way it did, was because people saw the clear personal nature of Grace’s support group and their attacks on the individual involved rather than the action committed.

    I await Katherine, these examples of such ‘bad-taste’ in campaigning. Frankly though, I do think you are talking a load of rubbish for the reasons I have mentioned above.


    Reply Report

  49. Surely this whole business has been blown WAY out of proportion. Although I didn’t agree with her views all too often when I was a student, Grace seems to have devoted a lot to the SU over the last five years and it seems a shame such a minor incident has forced her out of the post. One suspects this has more to do with personalities rather than any sort of common sense, but alas, that sums up student politics in a nutshell….

    Reply Report

  50. Taylor making false mental health allegations:


    Taylor on a friend (fellow conservative)’s facebook wall (since deleted – there are screenshots):

    Daniel D Taylor (London) wrote
    at 9:01pm on February 1st, 2008
    Voting is online at yusu.org from MOnday tpo Thursday of next week. Get EVERYONE voting for the motion of no-confidence you possibly can. Drag them to their computers, do whatever it takes. This is our chance to get her! xxx

    Dan Taylor (London) wrote
    at 4:01pm on February 7th, 2008
    When the US captured Saddam, they said; “We’ve got him”. I am changing that to the feminine: “We got her”.!! Drinks in Derwent Bar, Monday evening!

    And another Taylor quote on the UGM:

    “That girl about womens rights wants something done to her, preferably legal but pretty nasty.”

    Reply Report

  51. Hi Dan,

    I don’t know you and we will probably never meet. But I can honestly say I am glad about that.

    Reply Report

  52. Hmm well, but the reasons reiterated again and again included some things that weren’t acceptable – I refer primarily to your facebook group which (although these comments have now been removed) included comments about her academic record (her taking a year off her studies) and to previous acts of drunkenness with a view to casting her as unbalanced. That was in my opinion unacceptable. You should have confined your campaign just to the action in question. I’m not claiming that your language was abusive but I don’t think you’ve behaved with dignity in this affair. Although you have attempted to cast your role in this as non-personal, and while I have no doubt that those who voted were acting on a conviction of the justice of your claim, it’s clear that the politics of vendetta initially prompted you to take the steps you did. As I said I don’t know either party so I’m not interested in entering an extended debate with you – so I’ll just say what I said before: I hope we can all put this behind us.

    Reply Report

  53. Dan, the comments made by yourself and others (such as Tom Crockett) about Grace’s mental health were both disgusting and libellous – god knows what you were saying to students on an individual basis.

    Grace made an awful mistake but she apologised readily. I suggest you borrow someone’s West Wing DVDs and watch the episode “a proportionate response”. Your response was anything but proportionate – a fact doubtless related to her status as your political adversary.

    The only consolation in this is that you are so far removed from the mainstream of politics that you will quickly find yourself isolated once you’ve left the Heslington campus bubble. I shall raise a drink to your long-term irrelevence.

    Reply Report

  54. Dan Taylor claims that he ‘did not distribute any literature as her support group did, as if it were being run like some form of political campaign.’ He also states that his campaign to remove Grace FH from office has been in no way personalised.

    Well, aside from the proven defamatory mental health allegations made against Grace that refute that last point in particular, there’s also the personal message he sent out to complete strangers who had joined the ‘pro-Grace’ group, urging them to vote for the motion of no-confidence. Some of the people who forwarded this to me has expressed their utter disbelief upon receiving this message. If that’s isn’t distributing literature and personalising a campaign, I don’t know what is.

    Incidentally, if anyone would like to see Dan Taylor’s message, I have many copies I can send on.

    Reply Report

  55. May I remind people about an Incident on 16 May 2001 (see website attached)…

    It boils down to the same thing… a ‘figurehead’ did something wrong… difference is that one remained in office for a further 5 years, the other was forced to resign within a month…

    Think people… there are more important things in life than picking faults with the actions of people, whether they be right or wrong…

    Reply Report

  56. Um…Yeah except John Prescott had an egg thrown at him, and reacted in a way not in keeping with his office, but hardly in a way that isn’t understandable.
    I’m pretty confident though that if he got horribly drunk and punched a member of the public outside a Westminster pub then he might end up resigning. Anyway, its all over now I guess.

    Reply Report

  57. I am astounded by the comment that Dan Taylor directed at the ‘women about women’s rights’. I think it incredibly brave of her to have spoken out at the UGM. Surely such a comment as that, a violent and misogynist comment, loses him any credibility that he has had, along with his comments about Grace F-H.

    Reply Report

Leave a comment

Please note our disclaimer relating to comments submitted. Please do not post pretending to be another person. Nouse is not responsible for user-submitted content.