Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is such an hilarious chat it's almost beyond belief. So first off, thank you for making my work-filled day so much more enjoyable in the end.

    Let's go through these rather bizarre criticisms of the 'occupation' (and yeah, that's what it is, powerful connotations and all I'm afraid) one by one, if only to provide you wonderful posters with some more paragraphs to quote and provide empty but ostensibly witty retorts to...

    1) The occupation is not disrupting 'university proceedings'. It's Parliament Hall. I'd love to know what the last class you took in Parliament Hall was called. The lack of disruption is such an obvious point the Students Association noticed it: "We also commend the fact that they have chosen not to occupy any part of the University which will disrupt other students or interrupt teaching". The University did not decide to temporarily turn off wi-fi access in that area because the occupation forced it to do so; the Uni made a political decision, that keeping wi-fi on mattered less than trying to starve the occupation of publicity. You want the Uni to take action against the occupation or you want no disruption - you can't have it both ways.

    2) At least three of you by my count have argued something along the lines of 'I'm against tuition fees / education cuts too, but occupying a university building is a drastic measure / useless / delegitimising. I'm not gonna bother trying to convince you of the merits of an occupation. Instead I'll ask: if you're against fees and cuts, why not come along to a meeting about the issue to discuss it with like-minded individuals? Or better yet, shun all the usual activist forums if you don't like the people involved and set up your own anti-cuts group. Raise alternative ideas for expressing your opposition to fees & cuts policies.

    There's a strong burden of proof upon the person who has not tried taking part in anti-cuts activities and who instead badmouths such activities in front of their computer screen to then argue those activities are doomed to failure. There's also a moral responsibility upon that person to try to engage with other students who are involved in anti-cuts activism: if that person genuinely believes they're right and those activists are wrong, but they're equally opposed to cuts and fees, that person should try their best to ensure their ideas have an impact.

    Here's a good example: Sambo2, you argue "[w]hat you should have done is helped push through more widespread action from within the union". Well actually, for one thing, they already did that: pressure from students opposed to cuts since before the summer has helped convince the Union to finally begin a campaign around tuition fees. But more importantly, if pushing for union action is such a great idea, why didn't you say so before? You apparantly live in St Andrews; maybe you should've given us or the union a call?

    If you won't engage in a political dialogue, your opinion carries little moral force. In other words, in the context of communicating with fellow students, if you can't be bothered to grow up, shut up.

    3) An occupation does not reinforce an image of students as 'lazy'. Say what you like about people illegally entering a building and holding it while ensuring a steady stream of supplies and people, publicising their activities, negotiating with university management and organising rallies - you may think they're a bunch of idiots, but they're not lazy idiots. Or perhaps you guys are running political campaigns in-between checking this forum for new posts?

    4) Here's a meaty one: the students involved in the occupation hold "mopey, immature and ill founded judgments on economical issues" (the issues are economical? Is this an unintended pun? If so, well done you...). Since the person who said this didn't elaborate as to what these economical issues are, I'll just have to speculate (god forbid anyone writing an internet post should do that!) You might mean the occupiers' view that cuts to higher education are unnecessary in economic terms is mopey, immature and illfounded. If that's the case, the occupiers are in good company: fellow immature mopes include Paul Krugman, 2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics (always knew the Nobel Prizes were a communist plot), Martin Wolf of the Financial Times (the FT's definitely a far-left outfit) and David Blancheflower, former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (I guess that's what an anti-capitalist institution like the BofE does to you). If this isn't the economical issue you were talking about, please elaborate.

    5) And finally, the University of St Andrews is apparantly "more or less on [the occupiers'] side". We should acknowledge that the Uni isn't a monolithic entity and doesn't necessarily speak with one voice, but let's accept for the sake of argument that the Uni can be said to hold a position on cuts and fees, expressed, say, through official and public statements by University officials. What does that position look like?

    The "challenges [of the Browne Report] bring opportunities... The scale of the impending economic difficulties appears to be bringing an openness to novel approaches. Browne has offered English universities the prospect of a radically different but realistic solution to funding pressures. We need to see some equally creative lateral thinking in Scotland" - Louise Richardson, University of St Andrews News Update Autumn 2010

    We should accept home students who offer to pay overseas fees - Louise Richardson at the recent open Q&A (go watch it on the Uni's website)

    "The Browne Report is a good idea" - Peter Clark, Proctor

    "We're looking at commercialisation" - Louise Richardson, again at the Q&A

    ...hmm, nope, I think the Uni is on a different side to the occupiers.

    Anyway, hope you enjoy trying to pick holes in my language rather than my arguments. And well done Paul for managing to put up with this drivel while swearing relatively infrequently!
    • Offline

      1
      (Original post by oliverk)
      This is such an hilarious chat it's almost beyond belief. So first off, thank you for making my work-filled day so much more enjoyable in the end.

      Let's go through these rather bizarre criticisms of the 'occupation' (and yeah, that's what it is, powerful connotations and all I'm afraid) one by one, if only to provide you wonderful posters with some more paragraphs to quote and provide empty but ostensibly witty retorts to...

      1) The occupation is not disrupting 'university proceedings'. It's Parliament Hall. I'd love to know what the last class you took in Parliament Hall was called. The lack of disruption is such an obvious point the Students Association noticed it: "We also commend the fact that they have chosen not to occupy any part of the University which will disrupt other students or interrupt teaching". The University did not decide to temporarily turn off wi-fi access in that area because the occupation forced it to do so; the Uni made a political decision, that keeping wi-fi on mattered less than trying to starve the occupation of publicity. You want the Uni to take action against the occupation or you want no disruption - you can't have it both ways.

      2) At least three of you by my count have argued something along the lines of 'I'm against tuition fees / education cuts too, but occupying a university building is a drastic measure / useless / delegitimising. I'm not gonna bother trying to convince you of the merits of an occupation. Instead I'll ask: if you're against fees and cuts, why not come along to a meeting about the issue to discuss it with like-minded individuals? Or better yet, shun all the usual activist forums if you don't like the people involved and set up your own anti-cuts group. Raise alternative ideas for expressing your opposition to fees & cuts policies.

      There's a strong burden of proof upon the person who has not tried taking part in anti-cuts activities and who instead badmouths such activities in front of their computer screen to then argue those activities are doomed to failure. There's also a moral responsibility upon that person to try to engage with other students who are involved in anti-cuts activism: if that person genuinely believes they're right and those activists are wrong, but they're equally opposed to cuts and fees, that person should try their best to ensure their ideas have an impact.

      Here's a good example: Sambo2, you argue "[w]hat you should have done is helped push through more widespread action from within the union". Well actually, for one thing, they already did that: pressure from students opposed to cuts since before the summer has helped convince the Union to finally begin a campaign around tuition fees. But more importantly, if pushing for union action is such a great idea, why didn't you say so before? You apparantly live in St Andrews; maybe you should've given us or the union a call?

      If you won't engage in a political dialogue, your opinion carries little moral force. In other words, in the context of communicating with fellow students, if you can't be bothered to grow up, shut up.

      3) An occupation does not reinforce an image of students as 'lazy'. Say what you like about people illegally entering a building and holding it while ensuring a steady stream of supplies and people, publicising their activities, negotiating with university management and organising rallies - you may think they're a bunch of idiots, but they're not lazy idiots. Or perhaps you guys are running political campaigns in-between checking this forum for new posts?

      4) Here's a meaty one: the students involved in the occupation hold "mopey, immature and ill founded judgments on economical issues" (the issues are economical? Is this an unintended pun? If so, well done you...). Since the person who said this didn't elaborate as to what these economical issues are, I'll just have to speculate (god forbid anyone writing an internet post should do that!) You might mean the occupiers' view that cuts to higher education are unnecessary in economic terms is mopey, immature and illfounded. If that's the case, the occupiers are in good company: fellow immature mopes include Paul Krugman, 2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics (always knew the Nobel Prizes were a communist plot), Martin Wolf of the Financial Times (the FT's definitely a far-left outfit) and David Blancheflower, former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (I guess that's what an anti-capitalist institution like the BofE does to you). If this isn't the economical issue you were talking about, please elaborate.

      5) And finally, the University of St Andrews is apparantly "more or less on [the occupiers'] side". We should acknowledge that the Uni isn't a monolithic entity and doesn't necessarily speak with one voice, but let's accept for the sake of argument that the Uni can be said to hold a position on cuts and fees, expressed, say, through official and public statements by University officials. What does that position look like?

      The "challenges [of the Browne Report] bring opportunities... The scale of the impending economic difficulties appears to be bringing an openness to novel approaches. Browne has offered English universities the prospect of a radically different but realistic solution to funding pressures. We need to see some equally creative lateral thinking in Scotland" - Louise Richardson, University of St Andrews News Update Autumn 2010

      We should accept home students who offer to pay overseas fees - Louise Richardson at the recent open Q&A (go watch it on the Uni's website)

      "The Browne Report is a good idea" - Peter Clark, Proctor

      "We're looking at commercialisation" - Louise Richardson, again at the Q&A

      ...hmm, nope, I think the Uni is on a different side to the occupiers.

      Anyway, hope you enjoy trying to pick holes in my language rather than my arguments. And well done Paul for managing to put up with this drivel while swearing relatively infrequently!
      Waffle. Also, you joined today and have only made one post. Did your comrade in arms Paul tell you about this?
      • Offline

        14
        (Original post by oliverk)
        This is such an hilarious chat it's almost beyond belief. So first off, thank you for making my work-filled day so much more enjoyable in the end.

        Let's go through these rather bizarre criticisms of the 'occupation' (and yeah, that's what it is, powerful connotations and all I'm afraid) one by one, if only to provide you wonderful posters with some more paragraphs to quote and provide empty but ostensibly witty retorts to...

        1) The occupation is not disrupting 'university proceedings'. It's Parliament Hall. I'd love to know what the last class you took in Parliament Hall was called. The lack of disruption is such an obvious point the Students Association noticed it: "We also commend the fact that they have chosen not to occupy any part of the University which will disrupt other students or interrupt teaching". The University did not decide to temporarily turn off wi-fi access in that area because the occupation forced it to do so; the Uni made a political decision, that keeping wi-fi on mattered less than trying to starve the occupation of publicity. You want the Uni to take action against the occupation or you want no disruption - you can't have it both ways.

        2) At least three of you by my count have argued something along the lines of 'I'm against tuition fees / education cuts too, but occupying a university building is a drastic measure / useless / delegitimising. I'm not gonna bother trying to convince you of the merits of an occupation. Instead I'll ask: if you're against fees and cuts, why not come along to a meeting about the issue to discuss it with like-minded individuals? Or better yet, shun all the usual activist forums if you don't like the people involved and set up your own anti-cuts group. Raise alternative ideas for expressing your opposition to fees & cuts policies.

        There's a strong burden of proof upon the person who has not tried taking part in anti-cuts activities and who instead badmouths such activities in front of their computer screen to then argue those activities are doomed to failure. There's also a moral responsibility upon that person to try to engage with other students who are involved in anti-cuts activism: if that person genuinely believes they're right and those activists are wrong, but they're equally opposed to cuts and fees, that person should try their best to ensure their ideas have an impact.

        Here's a good example: Sambo2, you argue "[w]hat you should have done is helped push through more widespread action from within the union". Well actually, for one thing, they already did that: pressure from students opposed to cuts since before the summer has helped convince the Union to finally begin a campaign around tuition fees. But more importantly, if pushing for union action is such a great idea, why didn't you say so before? You apparantly live in St Andrews; maybe you should've given us or the union a call?

        If you won't engage in a political dialogue, your opinion carries little moral force. In other words, in the context of communicating with fellow students, if you can't be bothered to grow up, shut up.

        3) An occupation does not reinforce an image of students as 'lazy'. Say what you like about people illegally entering a building and holding it while ensuring a steady stream of supplies and people, publicising their activities, negotiating with university management and organising rallies - you may think they're a bunch of idiots, but they're not lazy idiots. Or perhaps you guys are running political campaigns in-between checking this forum for new posts?

        4) Here's a meaty one: the students involved in the occupation hold "mopey, immature and ill founded judgments on economical issues" (the issues are economical? Is this an unintended pun? If so, well done you...). Since the person who said this didn't elaborate as to what these economical issues are, I'll just have to speculate (god forbid anyone writing an internet post should do that!) You might mean the occupiers' view that cuts to higher education are unnecessary in economic terms is mopey, immature and illfounded. If that's the case, the occupiers are in good company: fellow immature mopes include Paul Krugman, 2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics (always knew the Nobel Prizes were a communist plot), Martin Wolf of the Financial Times (the FT's definitely a far-left outfit) and David Blancheflower, former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (I guess that's what an anti-capitalist institution like the BofE does to you). If this isn't the economical issue you were talking about, please elaborate.

        5) And finally, the University of St Andrews is apparantly "more or less on [the occupiers'] side". We should acknowledge that the Uni isn't a monolithic entity and doesn't necessarily speak with one voice, but let's accept for the sake of argument that the Uni can be said to hold a position on cuts and fees, expressed, say, through official and public statements by University officials. What does that position look like?

        The "challenges [of the Browne Report] bring opportunities... The scale of the impending economic difficulties appears to be bringing an openness to novel approaches. Browne has offered English universities the prospect of a radically different but realistic solution to funding pressures. We need to see some equally creative lateral thinking in Scotland" - Louise Richardson, University of St Andrews News Update Autumn 2010

        We should accept home students who offer to pay overseas fees - Louise Richardson at the recent open Q&A (go watch it on the Uni's website)

        "The Browne Report is a good idea" - Peter Clark, Proctor

        "We're looking at commercialisation" - Louise Richardson, again at the Q&A

        ...hmm, nope, I think the Uni is on a different side to the occupiers.

        Anyway, hope you enjoy trying to pick holes in my language rather than my arguments. And well done Paul for managing to put up with this drivel while swearing relatively infrequently!
        You see, all this means nothing to me. I couldn't care less about these protests and joined the thread purely to wind people up. If your working day is happening right now, then what job are you doing? If you're a doctor or nurse, get off your arse and help people. If you're a security guard... LOL

        The fee rises and education cuts don't affect me, and never will. Out of all the fun I have in life, some of it comes from laughing at those who seem to think this issue is something of life and death importance; more like spoiled, obstreperous and ignorant fools who have got into university by default because Tony Blair tried to fiddle the unemployment statistics.

        Nice try, and not bad for your first post. Pity it's a load of ill-judged tripe with no substance to back it up - did Paul92 send you here, perchance?
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        At least you haven't chosen to occupy a building where lectures are held(I'm assuming this is the case), we had to get ID'd here in Edinburgh, police and everything on the door!
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by oliverk)
        This is such an hilarious chat it's almost beyond belief. So first off, thank you for making my work-filled day so much more enjoyable in the end.

        Let's go through these rather bizarre criticisms of the 'occupation' (and yeah, that's what it is, powerful connotations and all I'm afraid) one by one, if only to provide you wonderful posters with some more paragraphs to quote and provide empty but ostensibly witty retorts to...

        1) The occupation is not disrupting 'university proceedings'. It's Parliament Hall. I'd love to know what the last class you took in Parliament Hall was called. The lack of disruption is such an obvious point the Students Association noticed it: "We also commend the fact that they have chosen not to occupy any part of the University which will disrupt other students or interrupt teaching". The University did not decide to temporarily turn off wi-fi access in that area because the occupation forced it to do so; the Uni made a political decision, that keeping wi-fi on mattered less than trying to starve the occupation of publicity. You want the Uni to take action against the occupation or you want no disruption - you can't have it both ways.

        2) At least three of you by my count have argued something along the lines of 'I'm against tuition fees / education cuts too, but occupying a university building is a drastic measure / useless / delegitimising. I'm not gonna bother trying to convince you of the merits of an occupation. Instead I'll ask: if you're against fees and cuts, why not come along to a meeting about the issue to discuss it with like-minded individuals? Or better yet, shun all the usual activist forums if you don't like the people involved and set up your own anti-cuts group. Raise alternative ideas for expressing your opposition to fees & cuts policies.

        There's a strong burden of proof upon the person who has not tried taking part in anti-cuts activities and who instead badmouths such activities in front of their computer screen to then argue those activities are doomed to failure. There's also a moral responsibility upon that person to try to engage with other students who are involved in anti-cuts activism: if that person genuinely believes they're right and those activists are wrong, but they're equally opposed to cuts and fees, that person should try their best to ensure their ideas have an impact.

        Here's a good example: Sambo2, you argue "[w]hat you should have done is helped push through more widespread action from within the union". Well actually, for one thing, they already did that: pressure from students opposed to cuts since before the summer has helped convince the Union to finally begin a campaign around tuition fees. But more importantly, if pushing for union action is such a great idea, why didn't you say so before? You apparantly live in St Andrews; maybe you should've given us or the union a call?

        If you won't engage in a political dialogue, your opinion carries little moral force. In other words, in the context of communicating with fellow students, if you can't be bothered to grow up, shut up.

        3) An occupation does not reinforce an image of students as 'lazy'. Say what you like about people illegally entering a building and holding it while ensuring a steady stream of supplies and people, publicising their activities, negotiating with university management and organising rallies - you may think they're a bunch of idiots, but they're not lazy idiots. Or perhaps you guys are running political campaigns in-between checking this forum for new posts?

        4) Here's a meaty one: the students involved in the occupation hold "mopey, immature and ill founded judgments on economical issues" (the issues are economical? Is this an unintended pun? If so, well done you...). Since the person who said this didn't elaborate as to what these economical issues are, I'll just have to speculate (god forbid anyone writing an internet post should do that!) You might mean the occupiers' view that cuts to higher education are unnecessary in economic terms is mopey, immature and illfounded. If that's the case, the occupiers are in good company: fellow immature mopes include Paul Krugman, 2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics (always knew the Nobel Prizes were a communist plot), Martin Wolf of the Financial Times (the FT's definitely a far-left outfit) and David Blancheflower, former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (I guess that's what an anti-capitalist institution like the BofE does to you). If this isn't the economical issue you were talking about, please elaborate.

        5) And finally, the University of St Andrews is apparantly "more or less on [the occupiers'] side". We should acknowledge that the Uni isn't a monolithic entity and doesn't necessarily speak with one voice, but let's accept for the sake of argument that the Uni can be said to hold a position on cuts and fees, expressed, say, through official and public statements by University officials. What does that position look like?

        The "challenges [of the Browne Report] bring opportunities... The scale of the impending economic difficulties appears to be bringing an openness to novel approaches. Browne has offered English universities the prospect of a radically different but realistic solution to funding pressures. We need to see some equally creative lateral thinking in Scotland" - Louise Richardson, University of St Andrews News Update Autumn 2010

        We should accept home students who offer to pay overseas fees - Louise Richardson at the recent open Q&A (go watch it on the Uni's website)

        "The Browne Report is a good idea" - Peter Clark, Proctor

        "We're looking at commercialisation" - Louise Richardson, again at the Q&A

        ...hmm, nope, I think the Uni is on a different side to the occupiers.

        Anyway, hope you enjoy trying to pick holes in my language rather than my arguments. And well done Paul for managing to put up with this drivel while swearing relatively infrequently!
        listen again carefully to what princ said - something along the lines of 'we can only accept x students but have 12x applications. We can take fees off foreign students and admit as many as we want but if a well qualified home student who wasn't good enough to get a subsidised place wants to pay they can't -- as she rightly points out that is crazy

        Why didn't I 'come up with better ideas' - mostly because I don't care strongly enough to spend my time doing that, I just think a 'sit in' is a particularly immature way of approaching the issue which actually allows the university to trivialise it - action should have been (and was, though it made no difference) taken through the SRC - the uni is legally obliged to listen to them whereas it is really not going to listen to a sit in, as has now been twice demonstrated.

        The crux of your arguament was 'cuts are bad, our sit in didn't work but you don't have any better ideas'. true dat.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by oliverk)
        . It's Parliament Hall. I'd love to know what the last class you took in Parliament Hall was called.
        Introduction to Assessment and Academic Misconduct. And before that Introduction to Tutoring and Demonstrating.

        Mandatory courses for all postgrad tutors, without which there wouldn't be enough people to tutor the undergrads. So yeah, they do hold some fairly important things in Parliament Hall.
        • Offline

          14
          Had fun sitting in a freezing cold room doing nothing when you could have been actually studying, or in the pub etc., while nobody really gives a damn and the fee rises went through anyway?

          Looking forward to getting expelled for breaking and entering?
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          I'd just like to show my support for the occupiers. I think occupying LPH was a great, peaceful way to protest against the hike in tuition fees without affecting classes. If it weren't for the fact that I'm ridiculously anal about going to lectures (I haven't missed one yet...) I'd have been at the sit-in too. Probably a bit selfish of me not to have been there so I admire you guys for doing what you did.

          People here who say you oppose the hike in tuition fees and staff cuts too, I'd recommend you go to the staff-student anti-cuts meeting tomorrow (Tuesday 14th) in School 1 at 7.30.
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.