Did you notice the Trafigura controversy at all? Not to mention other, less high-profile cases (I recall one instance of a particular man having his bankruptcy reversed, giving him carte blanche to have references to him having ever been declared bankrupt removed). The reference having been removed from the *public* domain means that you cannot cite it as ‘proof’; nor, I suspect, would the knowledge of the comment having been made be adequate without proof. The proof being the comment you wanted removed in the first place. My point, in any case, was addressing harassment – does repeating (and indeed reintroducing) an abusive comment (already removed from the public domain), albeit under a cloak of stern disapproval, constitute harassment in itself? It seems to me that it does; and that, perhaps, the honourable thing for Tommy to do would be to request that Nouse remove *his own* comment in which he specifically makes the repeat of the original offensive remark (assuming that it is so, which, of course, we have no proof of).

As for the story itself, it seems to me entirely sensible that if YUSU has a democratically mandated pro-choice policy, it should not be supporting a charity with a pro-life ethos.

@”I saw the offensive comments too” – isn’t free speech and open debate wonderful?

And as it has been pointed out before, Lewis has a heck of a lot of time left – he only spoke at his first UGM three days ago and he has at least five more left. And don’t forget that saving Derwent Bar is probably higher on students’ priority list than a fruit and veg stall so give him a chance, eh?

I’m sure, then, that your friend really appreciated you reintroducing the substance (albeit not as a direct quotation) of the already removed remarks to this board (and thus the public – googleable – domain). Some might say that to make an offensive remark about someone, not to mention to call into question the integrity of another commentator and Nouse itself, based upon evidence you cannot produce, was libellous/harassment (not to mention downright unkind to the subject of the insults), regardless of whatever spurious self-righteous justification it might be cloaked in.

No, because lewis is a good friend, and motive is relevant. And if you look closely I didn’t repeat the comment, merely pointed out the topic. Right I’m done with this debate too now.

The personal attacks against him are absolutely disgusting, but some of the commenters raised a few valid points. An elected representative can’t just abandon all of his proposals after getting into office. This isn’t how democracy, student or otherwise, is supposed to work.

You can tell I’m telling the truth because of Dan Horsfall’s comment – he posted at 10.48am this morning when that bit of the comment was still in the post.

Now, I assume you’ll apologise for your mistake and implying that I was lying?

Anyway, I really shouldn’t be getting involved with this (really I should ask for my Nouse account to be deleted so I can’t log in to the backend…)

I posted my comment about harassment, and it took ages for the moderators to let it through. In that time, obviously kicked into action by my post, they removed the personal insults from Stephen’s post.

(Note, obviously I no longer speak on behalf of Nouse, but rather as someone who has difficulty letting go…)

Stephen Patrick O’Ryan, your post earlier was a real toerag’s trick and you should be ashamed. I am amazed Nouse let the comment through and I wonder just how pathetic the comment was before moderation.

Fruit and veg is already sold in the SU shop? Would a stall really make that much money apart from at peak times (freshers week, graduation) ?

Bus service to morrisons was always going to be impossible to implement. No funds are available to subsidise it, and if it was a profitable route I’d bet you that one of the bus companies would’ve picked up on it by now. There are hourly buses to asda, but because they’re so infrequent, nobody bothers. The bus to morrisons would either be so infrequent nobody used it, or so frequent that it would have to charge high fares to cover the cost of multiple vehicles and drivers.

They’re all silly policies, but some of them are obviously silly. Students voted this guy in knowing these policies would be unworkable. Presumably just because he seemed a nice chap.

If we’re going to take policies seriously at SU elections, then we should all be angry about the lack of student venue in town, lack of pharmacy on campus, lack of discounted rum in campus bars…