If people other than myself were throwing this around, then I too accept that that is silly, but I cannot speak on their behalf and they have every entitlement to that view, even thought it seems utterly ridiculous.

The reason the group was titled for Tom to ‘resign’ was[is] because I was under the impression [rightly so] that he said he did not want the position and his resignation seemed to be immenant. However as he has since revised his position, I am not going to be the one doing the ‘pushing’. If he now feels that he can do the job and will take it seriously, we must all [reluctantly] accept this. However, this does not mean that he will receive special treatment and as a public figure we will use the group to scrutinse Tom, make suggestions, criticise and compliment when necessary and perhaps draw up UGM motions mandating the president on certain matters.

A more natural reading of your statement that you were only in favour of this as a last resort would be that you would resort to this if other methods of removal failed, not that you would only do this if Tom Scott did something outrageous. In fact if the paragraph you quoted really does assert no more than “Tom Scott should be no-confidenced if he does something really serious” then I’m afraid the apt response is “No shit, Sherlock”. The same could be asserted about any of the elected YUSU officials, hence I feel that by only bringing this up in the anti-Tom group you were stating more than you now claim to be.

You’ve certainly come a long way since the Hackwood no-confidence debacle…remember saying this? -

“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?” (comment thread from Henry’s article ‘Hackwood ousted by 8 votes’)

Presumably, you understand now that when we whinged about Grace’s removal, all those weeks ago, it was not because we hated democracy.

“4) No-Confidence- A real last resort. I am NOT in favour of such a move yet. However if our worst fears are confirmed and his pirate act has a detrimental effect on our ability to be represented at various levels, then this must be initiated. However this would prevent anyone else coming into the position and this is not always a popular move.”

In summary, I in no way favoured a no-confidence motion unless the Mad Cap’n did something so serious it warrented on [like hitting a student]. To say anything else is quite frankly utter bollocks, as you can see from the previous paragraph.

Well I did check that and it’s pretty obvious that you’re being disingenuous. In your ‘next steps’ discussion you identified no-confidencing as a fourth option and it was someone else who stated that this was ridiculous because Tom had done nothing wrong. Several people then backed this up. I’m glad that you’ve changed your position but don’t pretend that you did it unprompted or didn’t do it at all.

Also, I don’t think Lily (or anyone) would dispute that it is part of the democratic process for people to air their concerns, but it goes beyond that to call for Tom’s immediate removal, either by no-confidencing him or by putting pressure on him to resign. Since he hasn’t taken office yet, you had nothing to react to other than the fact that he won the election; democracy itself. And objecting to democracy itself and calling for the subversion of the results of a democratic election (without evidence of wrongdoing or proven incompetence) is quite obviously anti-democratic.

“It was the will of the students when Grace was voted out, to quote many of the anti-Grace brigade, and similarly it is the will of the students that Scott be our President. To claim otherwise is double standards.”

The democratic process [obviously] does not always go our way as we as individuals would like it to. I can a accept that but equally, you must recognise the views of some students who have concerns regarding the consequences of Tom Scott’s election. That to is part of the demicratic process, however unreasonable you may feel that cause to be [in this case thinking the Cap’n should carefully consider his position].

Just as a factual correction, there were never any plans to no-confidence Tom Scott and I object to that assertion. You will see in one of the group discussion topics, that I posted a piece on ‘next steps’ and completely and utterly rejected the no-confidence route simply because he has done nothing wrong!

I reckon he’s a dark horse for the most serious and useful YUSU president in the three years I’ve been here.