Why should any of this be anonymised? It does appear in google search results, but if Anna, or anyone from the society can not accept responsibility for actions and comments that could affect their future careers, they probably don’t deserve to be successful.

Ideally, I’d say it’d be nice for Nouse to delete/at least anonymise comment threads over two years old- some things said on here would look *tremendously* awkward were they to crop up in a Google Search.

JP

What I am prepared to say is that this issue is hopefully nearing its final chapter. What has been has been. Chris Etheridge is indeed correct in saying that it is time to move the committee and of course the entire society on towards the new academic year, which is what we intend to do in these final few weeks before the summer. This will enable us to have sound and positive plans for the new year – socials, events, speakers etc.

The events of the last two or three weeks have without a doubt been some of the most challenging for the society but I have no doubt that we will move on from this affair.

York Tories Publicity Officer

I would also like to add one further point. I feel that comparisons between the Labour Club, the NGS and the York Tories serve no purpose in this debate. All of these societies have their merits and I have good friends in each of them. Rather than seeking to cause further controversy, I think it would be best for all parties concerned with this debate to move on. University is a time for making friends and meeting new people; not a time for becoming embroiled in personal attacks.

Anyhow, that is my opinion.

I shall now refrain from further comment because I feel that all that can be said has been so.

I have never led any conspiracy against anyone within the York Tories nor do I have any interest in such actions. Charlie and myself are on very amicable terms and have spoken on several occasions about the matter. Any disagreements have been resolved in very effectively.

Furthermore, what upsets me most about this article is its petty nature. Myself and other members of the committee have worked very hard recently to organise speaker visits such as those by Viscount Monkton and David Davis and our annual Summer Ball. Instead of focusing on this, this article simply seeks to create tension and division.

It looks to me like there will be little backlash from this and it (including Ralph’s departure) will have negligible effects beyond the end of term. Good luck to the new Chair, who has obviously had to start the job under a little more pressure than usual!

1) Nouse has confirmed above that *nobody* can claim to know the sources of the story, as they have not been released. Therefore Appleton is lying when she says that she ‘knows’ who the sources were.

2) What is all this about the Tories being the largest political society on campus? The Labour club is far more active, and the NGS has both many more meetings and many more members than the Tories.

3) It is simply untrue to say that there was no plan to attack Rowley. Chris Etheridge spoke to me on the subject just hours before the vote, and made it very clear that both he and Appleton were doing all they could to ruin Charlie’s chances.

I know we have a lot of socials, but our suppers tend to be only committee members (this is only a guess as I have never actually been on one). I dont’t mention committee votes as worse than non-committee members – its just that other people have written on here saying what a lively and growing society we have, but only 4 non-committee members turned up to listen to the speeches. We have 100+ members on facebook yet none of them could be bothered to turn up to vote. It’s this that annoys me. If the members actually cared about the society, and the future it’s going to have, surely they could have turned up to vote? Maybe we didn’t advertise it enough, I don’t know

Finally, Anna informs me that since the publication of this article she has been approached by a senior member of the Nouse team who confirmed that Charlie was not just the source of one of the quotes but _all_ of the anonymous quotes in the last article. Striking stuff. There was no dragging of Charlie’s name through the mud – it seems he waded through it of his own accord.

Charlie was the one in the committee meeting on Tuesday who brought up not talking to the media. I’ve been informed that 4 committee members had spoken to the media before that article was published – if Charlie and Felix were two of them (Felix is publicly named in the article) then who are the other 2 and why didn’t they get named and shamed at the committee meeting? Also how did Anna find out that Charlie was the one who had spoken to the media?

And also tomorrow is only the 2nd time the Tories have visited Ziggys this year, so its not really a typical night.

Lucy,
don’t you think the fact he only got 2 votes at the elections had anything to do with the committee meeting we held just before that, when Charlie’s name was dragged through the mud? or maybe the committee had already decided that Anna was who they were going to vote for?

Also the fact that only 23 people voted shows how little ‘members’ actually care about the society – 13 votes were from the committee and 6 were proxy votes (votes from members who couldn’t attend). this means only 4 non-committee members went to the election night, and 6 people voted without hearing the election speeches, going on name alone.

23 people voted and he only managed to get two votes. Leaving 21 people who voted against him…now Im quite sure there isnt 21 members of the tory committee.

Charlie was not the choice of the society and he should just get over it.