Latest News
Local
Kent Union AGM – Live Debate
The AGM rolls along peacefully, if you’re interested you can read the last two parts here www.inquirelive.co.uk/node/124 and here www.inquirelive.co.uk/node/124
so far every motion has been passed, Let’s have a clean page:
20.36: “Hot air in a question less vacuum”, the only phrase that can describe the unnecessary motion proposing the name change of our sabbaticals to vice- presidents. This has been dragged out for far too long. There are many bored faces indeed. No wonder these bureaucratic events have such a low turn out.
20.49: The motion changing the name of the sabbaticals to vice- presidents passes. Some are happy, others are not. However, the issue has now been settled.
20.51: The quorum count is called for, it looks like there might not be 150 here any more.
20.56: This has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. The numbers are being counted as people start growing wary…157 have been counted, that’s only 8 over quorum!
20.59: There has been a trickle out of people, it looks as though the AGM is unofficially below quorum.
21.00: A motion concerning officers meetings between members of the JCC and Sabbaticals has been put to the audience. A woman comes to the floor and calls the AGM a sham.
21.03: There is now a heated debate between the JCC Officers and the Sabbaticals and Part- Time Officers. This is a clash of individuals that might not be in the interest of the AGM attendees.
21.07: This has become nothing more than just several conflicting personalities bringing their own misunderstandings to a formal meeting. This should not be sanctioned by the chair. The Chair rightfully calls for an interval to check the existing constitution, as well as for individuals to regain a level head to the proceedings.
21.30: We’ve, perhaps correctly been told of for our biased reporting, we apologise for any offence caused, and are in the process of rectifying the possible bias and offences. Once again we apologise for this.
21.40: The Officers Meeting motion has now been scrapped. The details of the motion were already sanctioned under the Constitution adopted last year. A sense of order returns to the AGM.
21.42: A motion has just been passed to improve pedestrian safety. It received backing from all attendees.
21.59: James Bull takes the floor and talks about the societies, funding as an issue is raised.
21.51: Someone from the audience raises the question of how difficult small societies find it to get funding. James Bull agrees and admits it’s a difficult issue. People also go on to raises issues with the Kent union societies website.
21.57: Tom Marsh, sports sabbatical has the floor and talks about his ‘fresh start’ campaign, which involves healthy living. He envisions more people participating in recreational sport on campus.
22.01: Marsh thanks everyone, including his girl friend, to huge applause.
22.10: Tom Marsh answers some difficult questions from an audience member, and handles the tough questioning professionally, and with good humour.
22.20: We are now on motion eleven, which begins the third and final bucket of AGM motions. This is a motion to introduce course representative penalisation. The proposer of the motion makes the point of course representatives being accountable to the department and not Kent Union. Archie Ofodile responds to the proposer by saying that course representatives ARE accountable to Kent Union. Individuals are having individual concerns with the motion. Points of question are being used to try and make the motion clearer, however many in the audience do not seem to be convinced by the proposition.
22. 30: Motion eleven has proven to be a contentious one. Accountability of course representatives is the crux on the motion. Debate continues.
22. 39: The motion passes with ease, despite the odd vote against.
22. 40: There is quoracy count, once again…
22. 42: The count comes in as 134, inquorm. All motions from now on will have to be passed at Union Council, but the discussion continues and the vote is still important as this will influence the council’s decision.
22. 44: Next Motion: Coke as unethical. The proposers sight the unethical practices of coke in various countries and urges the council to make a stand. The opposition dismisses the motion as irrelevant. Tom Christian seconds the motion, and reminds us that there once a time when corporations feared the student collective will. He urges us to ‘raise our voices’ and make them heard against unethical practices. A member of the audience is asked to leave the room as he made an ‘inappropriate comment.’
22. 52: Vote on another round of speeches. It passes.
22. 54: Archie supports the motion, and states the union should make a stand and the opposition should apologise for talking of a ‘fascist mindset.’
23. 00: A opponent of the motion says that you can’t pick and choose the companies you should make a stand against.
23. 04: The vote looks close…
23. 06: The motion passes. The motion now goes to Union Council.
23. 06: Next motion- a vote of no confidence in the international officer. The proposer highlights this is not a personal attack, but he has been absent from meetings and isn’t doing there job properly.
23. 09: The opposition states this is not a motion that should be discussed at AGM or voted in Union Council, as the international officer should be talked to privately, and not made a public show. There is also the question of who will take the responsibility of the role.
23. 14: James Bull comments that this officer in question has had plenty of support and has still not fulfilled his role. Peter Mackintosh surmises for the proposition. He gives a damning report of the international officer. He says that this is holding part-time officers to account.
23.21: The motion passes. Two more to go.
23.22: Next MOTION: The abolition of the position of men’s position. Peter Mackintosh proposes. He suggests that we shouldn’t keep a position from the ’19th century’ and that there is not many men’s officers left in the country, as the position is redundant.
23.25: The Men’s officer takes the floor himself to oppose and defence himself. He says the position insures individuality and equality and getting rid of it would be discriminatory.
23.26: Archie supports the motion. Women and minorities officers are discriminated against and men are not to the same extent, so the position is rather unnecessary.
23. 31: Tom Christian asks the men’s officer how many men have come to him for help. He answers honestly- three.
23. 33: The post-graduate officer asks Peter Mackintosh about the percentage of men to women in the university. The answer is 48: 52. The plot thickens.
23.41 Luke Walter has signed off, we’re currently awaiting the vote count for the abolition of the men’s officer…
23.42 MEN’S OFFICER STAYS!!!
23.42: For what looks like the first time this evening, Kent Union have been defeated on a motion, they lost pretty badly as well. Sam Howes, current men’s officer, fought his corner very well and his other contributions this evening will no doubt have helped prolong his political career
23.45: The final proposal of the evening is a motion suggesting the union should remove their support for pro choice group, Abortion Rights UK. Archie is currently defending the motion.
23.48: Apparently the idea is that the union shouldn’t affiliate itself with either a pro life or pro choice group, a man with very funny face paint makes a good point about the union already tying itself to social arguments by campaigning against coca cola.
23.54: Votes now being counted……….
23.55: We are no longer supporting pro choice at Kent Uni.
23.57 THE AGM IS NOW OFFICIALLY OVER. GOODBYE AGM.
Comments
Post new comment
Nice commentary on live events on the website as it keeps us informed on important issues that are happening. However, the details of the AGM do point out why nobody turns up to these events. There quite boring by the sounds of things since its just a load of politics alot of the time. No wonder it ended up being inquorate. Do people purposefully want these motions to fail and so call count all the time?
By Anonymous on 6.2.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
Hello Mr Pretender,
I’m sure you’d agree that using private money to finance political campaigns is a negative for democracy, especially when over £100,000 goes undeclared.
Whilst Peter Hain may or may not have ‘little hands’ it could certainly be proven the body which held the campaign funds was suspect, the vast amount of money he used shows his greed and I know he has hands as I’ve seen them on the news!
Whether the cabinet are truly ‘small time crooks’ which was a joke, in a satirical article, is true or not, could be supported by the cash for honours scandal, and other occasions where the police have had to question our MPs.
Peter Hain stepped down before the parliamentary committee had decided whether he was guilty of serious fraud, what does that suggest?
Although the chances of us ending up in court are minuscule I certainly would welcome the publicity, we need more visitors like yourself!
Keep writing – Ed
By website-editor on 2.2.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
Dear Mr Editor,
Whilst I agree that the article in question may have its basis in the facts that Mr Hain resigned over a campaign funding issue, that in itself is not enough.
For starters, the money went to a campaign fund. To suggest that it was channelled “in to his own greedy little hands” implies something different altogether. I put it to you that suggesting a senior member of the cabinet diverted cash in to his personal account is a defamatory statement.
Likewise, I see nothing in either of the articles to suggest that the entire cabinet are involved in criminal activity as suggested by your article (“cabinet of small time crooks”). I put it to you that that is also a defamatory statement.
In libel law, the burden of proof lies with the defendant. If you were in a court of law, could you back up either of those statements?
I don’t look at Inquire through tainted eyes at all. However, it concerns me when I read such blase copy.
Whilst I agree that the chances of Inquire being sued for anything are relatively small, it’s by no means non-existant, and it’s naive to assume otherwise.
By The Pretender on 2.2.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
I did really quite enjoy this commentary, despite certain disagreements I have had with inQuire in the past. The majority of it is accurate and also funny.
‘How about the JCC do something for a change, instead of taking chaep shots at the univeristy paper?
I mean come on, what have you guys actually done all year?’
I’d just like to point out that there are 4 JCC’s and PWC, please don’t brush everyone under the same title, if you feel your JCC hasn’t done much for you that does not mean the others may have not for their students. The JCC’s work extremely hard and of course you have your opinion to disagree. But can you honestly say that the JCC’s have done absolutely nothing this year?
‘Plus penaltys for course reps, why dont you try training us for more than an hour! Give us your support not dissatifaction.’
I don’t know, but you might have noticed that the proposer of the motion and myself as the seconder, actually don’t train the course reps? But there are reps who aren’t fulfilling their roles and why shouldn’t the same system exist that exists for any other elected officer in the Union? This year all course reps will be receiving certificates signed personally by the Vice chancellor. Hardly fair if they didn’t do their jobs?
As far as I am aware you do receive support in your roles. But not receiving any contact at all from any reps, as I have not, I would not say is acceptable. Neither is not replying to your faculty/department reps.
If you didn’t agree with the motion why didn’t you oppose it or say something about it?
If you think the course reps deserve more time and training then feel free to contact me, ljg30@kent.ac.uk
We could talk about putting something forward to council that supports course reps more adequately.
By Lauren on 1.2.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
Mr Pretender, I wrote the editorial on Peter Hain, taking ‘all manner of rumour and hearsay’ from these sources:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2240012,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3245416.ece
I feel you also should check, ‘just for laughs’, these two articles, then you can see where I got my ‘facts’ from, it may also be of use if you’re interested in launching a court case against us.
inQuire in not breaking any laws at the moment, nor do we intend too, we have a copy of legal guides for journalism in our office, I think it’s laughable for you to suggest we will be sued!
we do edit our check written articles thoroughly for errors, and whilst some spelling mistakes creep through, I can’t see very many at all.
perhaps you look at us through tainted eyes?
By website-editor on 31.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
Whilst no-one is denying anyone’s right to freedom of speech, when you publish comments in a newspaper or on the Internet, you have to play by the rules.
Unfortunately Inquire are very good at taking the sensationalist line and reporting all manner of rumour and hearsay as fact. This is not acceptable.
I suggest that someone in the editorial office at Inquire gets hold of a copy of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists and reads the section on libel and defamation. Then, just for laughs, I’d cross-reference it to, for example, the article on Peter Hain’s departure from the government at http://www.inquirelive.co.uk/node/106.
I do hope that you have reliable sources for all the wild allegations made in that particular article. Could Inquire afford to be sued?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that Inquire a) conforms to the law of the land and b) for God’s sake at least run the articles through a spell checker before printing them even if you don’t have time/can’t be bothered to proof-read them. Some of the spelling and grammatical errors, both in print and on the website, are absolutely shocking considering this is meant to be a newspaper written and edited by university students.
By all means be an independent voice, but remember to play by the rules whilst you’re at it.
By The Pretender on 31.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
While everything written in InQuire has not always been to my taste I do respect the fact that this is an INDEPENDENT newspaper and the student members of InQuire have the freedoms to express themselves in the Commentary sections.
The journalism of InQuire is not there to serve the agenda of elected officers of JCC’s or Kent Union. The Mouthpiece is a decent outlet for that type of news.
Let’s all cool down, including me!
By Shaun Nichols on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
Fine, but the original statement re: the JCC came from Inquire. If, or not, Swift is a member is of no importance. The fact is that he is defending you as an organisation for something YOU have done wrong.
I am not being rude, I am not the sort of person to pick fights for the sake of it unlike some others I can think of (make of that what you will. But what I expect when I want to see a relay of the AGM events I don’t particually want to see something riddled with someone’s own opinions.
And how concerned with fellow students is that?
Not very much at all.
By Renegade on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
You say what the JCC do if of no concern to fellow students, surely you’re meant to be representing students? You then accuse your fellow students of being rude and hypocritical when they criticise you.
But how about when you, yourself are behaving in, what could be percieved by some, as a rude and hypocritical manner, does your lofty JCC position elevate you above those terms?
Richard Swift is, as far as I know, not even a member of inQuire, I don’t think you should be attacking our students views in the first place but it’s always useful to be aware of who exactly you’re criticising, if you want to carry on doing so.
By website-editor on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
The fact of the what the JCC has done this year is of no concern of yours at all. If there has been any instances where the JCC have not delivered in their designated roles then I am sure the Union would act upon that. You say not to take chaep (sic) shots but surely what you have just done is hypocritical?
Sometimes I wonder if InQuire see themselves as omnipotent, and most people would be more cautious about their allegations if they were in such a position, as they are, of being an outlet for University discussion and, ultimately, changing students’ opinions.
One last point: remember the JCC are elected, usually for a good reason and, fundamentally, it is rude to accuse them of (I paraphrase)doing nothing.
By Renegade on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
Thank you inQuire for the coverage of the AGM last night. I couldn’t make it to the meeting, so I was very glad to find you were reporting on this perpetually. I think this article is a great respresentation of what this website should be about. Keep up the great work!
Shame about the blatant ignorance from a certain commenter though…
By Laurence on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
RE ‘how about a little bit of journalism for a change, eh?’
How about the JCC do something for a change, instead of taking chaep shots at the univeristy paper?
I mean come on, what have you guys actually done all year?
By Richard Swift on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
6 hours i sat in that room and watched that show of democracy! I thank you inquire for saying things honestly. It would have helped if i could hear a word our union president was saying, for a man in charge he is an appalling public speaker. Plus penaltys for course reps, why dont you try training us for more than an hour! Give us your support not dissatifaction. Perhaps unions should be motivating students to speak?how are we to do our jobs if students refuse to get involved?
By Anonymous on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
A nice commentary, humour makes it a nice read although there are a few inaccuracies I noticed. Generally good job.
By Lauren on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
despite what grievences many people may have with inquire, i’d like to thank them for report the agm at all, some of us may not have known what was going on at the time.
By Anonymous on 30.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.
Wow, inQuire really knows what its talking about… perhaps if you oh so mighty journalists descended occasionally from your high horse and attended said JCC meetings, you might a) understand the reasons behind the motion and b) understand their overall value to the Union, which, I hasten to add, is highly underrated… how about a little bit of journalism for a change, eh?
By Anonymous on 29.1.2024
If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.