You make a fair point, Ben. However, Henry also makes a fair point as well with what he has said. The problem is that he may not have worded that specific sentence as best as he could have.

It isn't that LGBT people necessarily have 'interests', as in hobbies, that are specific to them. However, LGBT people certainly do have 'interests', be they welfare-specific (dental dams, the issues around not being allowed to give blood, etc) or social (LGBT Social trips to Canal Street for example), that differenciate them from other "large group[s] of people on campus".

As for divides that have been created, all sides to work together and need to be open to working together to help close these. Thankfully, at York, this is the case by-and-large.

"I knew it would cost more and that it wouldn’t affect ticket sales but as I said before, I cared more about putting on an amazing event than raising money"

1) Considering the proceeds were going to charity, surely the emphasis should have been more on raising money? I suppose every event is a trade-off between quality and profit but I think I would have concentrated more on profit.

2) Not having a go at Jason here because he doesn't seem to be complaining, but to those that are attributing blame to YUSU... If this was Jason's attitude, it is his fault that the event did not make a profit (or didn't make smaller losses), not YUSU's.

Amy, the UGM motion was put foreward because you, amongst others, believe the constitution to not be equal inclusive. Though it's certainly a worthwhile debate, the pervasiveness of self-definition as a pre-requisite to membership of liberation campaigns within and beyond YUSU, and the defence of that criterion when it comes under attack suggests that it's not so clear cut.

Not identifying as disabled myself, I was in two minds as to whether or not to vote against the motion, but the fact that the speech and coverage mentioned Women's and LGBT committee too put me at ease. The involvement of allies in all campaigns is helpful, and having someone to fill the position is arguably better than having no-one at all. However, having someone without that background and those experience does have an impact on the nature of the role and the way that it's approached.

Your response to Jamie aside, nothing suggests to me (caveat, I don't define into that demographic) that you couldn't be entirely capable of performing the role. However, having in the past been made to feel very uncomfortable and disenfranchised by completely well-meaning allies in LGBT campaigns, I'm wary of throwing open the coordination of liberation campaigns to those in the position of privelege that the campaign's members can only aspire to.

In short, my wariness isn't about you doing a good job - it's about throwing the otherwise extremely helpful and empowering concepts of self-definition and self-organisation out with the bathwater when they're working well in other campaigns.

Perhaps you could work through your concerns with Women's & LGBT committee and try to understand why that requirement *is* useful to some people? It'd certainly be a helpful step for people such as myself who didn't feel they could vote in favour of the motion because of the mention of Women's and LGBT and the potential associated damage to the legitimacy of other groups constituted around a requirement of self-definition.

"the specific interests of a large group of people on campus would be left un-catered for"

What specific interests are these then? Men can still sleep with men, women with women, without LGBT, the fact is, gay people have no more "specific interests" which need catering for than straight people. Being homosexual isn't an interest or a hobby, it's a sexual orientation. Sentences like the one I've quoted are what artificially create a divide.

Not really racism, it was just the fact they used his surname, which is also an adjective, in that manner..it made it seem as if they were calling him a fatty. My surname is laughable and can be used as an adjective too (not really keen on posting it online, tbh) so I would find it funny if some one did it to me..

I've just stumbled across this article, and I'm actually quite shocked and a little sad. I actually work for a crisis pregnancy centre that is also affiliated with CareConfidential. My centre manager has worked very closely to the director or CC, and I cant believe people are labelling them 'a terrible organisation'. Yes, its a Christian based organisation, but we are NOT pro-life.We are a completely non-judgmental service. We do not go out of our way to discourage abortion, we just believe in giving someone time to THINK about their options rather than act out of fear in haste, and then regret it later. If someone tests positive and states ' i want an abortion and thats that'. who are we to argue? We also provide an excellent post abortion counselling service, because regardless of which 'pro' you may be, abortion CAN wreck lives. We are there to help get lives back together again. Its a sad state of affairs and an illusytration of the problems we face when most of our clients are actually suffering post abortion problems.

You win some, you lose some J-dog. Nobody said it was gonna be easy.

Jamie, I've just read your response to the article/comment, and to be honest I'm insulted at the lack of understanding you have for the word 'empathy'. Empathy in no way means sympathy and shouldn't be misinterpreted this way. Empathy is about understanding, not knowing. You do not have to share the same experience as someone to be able to understand it, or see it from their point of view.

The UGM motion I put forward was not stating that sympathy is the role of the Disability Officer - patronising much? The UGM motion was put forward because the constitution as it is at the moment is not equal or inclusive. The position should be held be someone who is passionate about working with and helping people and someone willing to understand isssues with a sensitive and respectful manner.

Please understand the motion before you make incorrect assumptions.

Try and empathise with why I put it forward.

Lastly, thank you George for your response and Camilla for your comment in response to Victoria's article which I think was very true to the concept of the actual motion.

YUSU exists to help students, so I believe it should have helped Jason. It has put its neck on the line with how it runs it own events and supports others so I don't see why it couldn't have helped Jason.

Re #1 - Jason was budgeting break even at 54% capacity, which I believe is well within the YUSU figure of 66%. So in that sense, the budget was cautious, not risky. If the budget was 'risky' surely YUSU could have helped make it less so?

Re #2 - The event was endorsed by the CU, not run by it. It really pisses me off when YUSU refuse to work with anyone who isn't within their organisation. YUSU still has a legal duty to help and assist York students and their developmental opportunities, even if it is officially 'external' to YUSU.

Re #3 - Arghhh there is no such law as 'Ultra Vires law'. Yes, it would have been an ultra vires action for YUSU to finance the event in the same way it did with Woodstock for years but it still doesn't negate YUSU's lack of assistance in other areas.

The phrase 'ultra vires' should not be used as a roadblock to YUSU offering help and support to students wanting to further their university experience. Surely YUSU would have wanted to see this event as a success as now any future event in CHall will have to be deemed as 'risky' and possibly subject to the wrath of the trustees.

The look of absolute despair on the Derwent faces in that pic....
Makes me wanna cry.

The whole YUSU should have helped out is starting to annoy me.

#1 YUSU now has a trustee board who have to, among other duties, assess the financial risk of any venture and so I believe they would have turned this away (if the common sense of the officers hadn't already done)

#2 YUSU cannot really work with things CU related as they are not affiliated and therefore any sort of split financing is not allowed

#3 The event was raising money for charity therefore it would be against Ultra Vires law for YUSU to put any money or provide any sort of financial fall back for the event should it make a loss

I think it's admirable that they are now trying to help Jason seek support and I am very surprised that the university allowed a student run event to occur without the backing of YUSU and that Ben's arguments in this piece are spot on.
Hats off to you Jason for getting events restarted in Central Hall but I don't think it was the right one to start with.

OMG! You just did a racism.

"Are you going to run any in the future? (Just curiosity you don’t have to answer)"

Obviously, I'm not Jason so don't take my work for it but... I don't see Jason organising another concert on campus. He's already £2000 in debt from this one, he doesn't need anymore! I think there will be more though. Jason has shown it can be done, and maybe now others will follow in his footsetps. Maybe the next guy to give it a shot can learn from Jason's mistakes?

And Big D is just a large Derwent event that takes place at the end of the year. It's usually run around the same time as the Summer Ball, and although it's not run in direct competition with the Summer Ball (I don't think it is, anyway), there usually seems to be a lot of debate about which is the best and who will be attending what.

Although Fatty accepted, “contributory negligence” for leaving his laptop unattended in the library

hahahaha :')

Our roses chances should not be doubted ..... doubt is the thought pattern of losers lets maintain posiitve mental attitudes! We are going wipe the floor with Lancaster and have a repeat performance of last year in the Tennis where the mens or the womens team did not loose a set!

"And it’s an interesting marker that all of the 3rd years have complimented and the 1st years are criticising!"

to be fair maybe first years expect more from a 'gig', like I think perhaps we're too ambitious in the type of band (no offense I just hate Christian rock I'm sure it's nice for Christians though) we'd expect from it, the type of atmosphere, etc. Also bearing in mind it seemed primarily aimed at first years (you said you campaigned heavily in kitchens, I've seen you campaign in kitchens I think in a suit + trainers?) or those living on campus..so maybe we're more critical as we decided NOT to go whereas 3rd years would just be impressed that some one finally managed to get it going.

The article does make you seem more like a crackhead who decided to do this rather than some one who actually had experience, so sorry for the utter lack of sympathy...It would have worked out with a more mainstream band but I know that a lot of people would have been put off with the Christian label instantly..

Are you going to run any in the future? (Just curiosity you don't have to answer)

“I have no idea what big D is.”

That cuts deep, Daniella. Deep."

i'm sorry, what is it?

The title was my fault. Apologies.

A mate pointed this article out to me and I'm so glad he did because I want to take my hat off to Amy McKessy for opening up this debate. It's a well-timed debate if the position of Disabilities Officer wasn't filled in the recent elections.

Good luck to both sides - I'm too past it to be in a position to state my views, I had my time in the sun (Access Officer 03-05, EdWelf Officer 05-06). But do find out what NUS disability campaign think - god, I hope they don't still call it 'students with disabilities'.

N.B. Campus genii.

It is meant to be back by unpopular demand!

I'm pleased to say that I haven't lost hope in people being interested about some of the issues and debating about them. My house has seen passionate debates about disabled committees and free range eggs in costcutters once I force them into the conversation of our living room.

Shame none of them voted.

pretty sure its meant to be "back by unpopular demand"...

*hugs*

YES!

This is brilliant, good to have you back.

£1 overall loss? I'll give them a quid if it covers it....

"30 Seconds to Mars issued their call to arms against their critics"
Funny that, when you're supposed to be the critic writing the review.

This isn't a review, it's the wet dream of some obsessive fan. You should have just included a picture of jarod or whatever that dick is called, so the rest you could collectively circle-jerk over it more effectively.

"Maybe YUSU should support enterprising students who want to bring live music to the campus rather than ignore them."

*sigh*, I'd have loved to.

And we complain that Foy is a twat...

Awesome gig and awesome review. And who could believe the Mohawk?! Insane night.