Wednesday, 28 January 2009

Statement on the behaviour of the university authorities

Over the course of the evening our discussions have been repeatedly and deliberately disrupted in order to sabotage the ongoing negotiations process. We had felt that talks were moving forward but obviously the university thought differently.

A group from the occupation left the building at 7 o’clock to go to a CUSU meeting which was due to discuss support for our protest. Immediately after they departed, the Registrary sent a letter informing us that no one who had left would be able to re-enter the building and threatening legal action against us. This included an ultimatum to leave the building within half an hour. Shorty after 9pm, the Proctors arrived to take our names (again) and took photos of us. While complying with their requests we found them throwing away the food that our catering group had prepared.

We members of the Cambridge Gaza Solidarity Occupation condemn unreservedly the disgraceful and intimidating behaviour displayed by the university authorities. This is a wholly unacceptable way for an institute of education to behave towards its own members engaged in a peaceful protest.

Throughout our occupation, the authorities have treated us with contempt and disrespect, despite our friendly working relationship with many security staff and our general goodwill.

A university which engages in intimidation without genuine dialogue is not worthy of the name. Cambridge University claims to be stand for values of freedom of expression, and these worrying actions prove this claim false and set a dangerous precedent for future student activists. We must fight against this trend of intimidation, and urge messages of protest to be sent to v-c@admin.cam.ac.uk.

86 comments:

  1. Again, I will repeat - and others reading will concur - you have been sold a pup. No-one commenting here is denying that Gazans deserve a better lot than they've been dealt, but this ain't the way to go about it. For them or for you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The dangerous possibility is that in the future such behavior on the part of universities will be regarded as normal. Hopefully, the university will receive strong enough condemnation from a wide enough range of sources for this not to be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What, can I ask, is the difference between the way you have treated the university, and the way it has treated you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael, the most dangerous thing - in my mind, at least - is that the poor sods on this protest will be sent down whilst the likes of Professor Richard Drayton or whichever academics continue to draw their salaries; as well as the gallant Craig Murray finds another university to speak at, or Sam Wade moonlights from whatever his day-job is.

    That is what sticks in my claw.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think the students will be sent down. I think they will be verbally reprimanded. The University and its Colleges are very, very pragmatic. They want to draw a line under this. And they're well within their rights.

    Pithy postscript: What would Hamas have to do to earn an "unreserved condemnation" of the sort you've just dealt to your hosts?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alternatively,

    We the University of Cambridge condemn unreservedly the disgraceful and intimidating behaviour displayed by the members of the Cambridge Gaza Solidarity Occupation. This is a wholly unacceptable way for students at an an institute of education to behave towards its own members engaged in a peaceful academic study.

    A groups which engages in intimidation without genuine dialogue is not worthy of the name. These student activists claim to be stand for values of freedom of expression, and these worrying actions prove this claim false and set a dangerous precedent for future protests . We must fight against this trend of intimidation, and urge messages of protest to be sent to cambridgeoccupation@live.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. What exactly *is* your protest against Cambridge University? You are asking them to allow you to protest the Israeli state, so far as I can tell.

    Your last post said that the University had asked for a response by 7pm, so what do you mean by "Over the course of the evening our discussions have been repeatedly and deliberately disrupted in order to sabotage the ongoing negotiations process"?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, Underthought, I take that back. I should have said *risk* being sent down.

    Still, one for the learning process!

    ReplyDelete
  10. You weren't peaceful. You punched people for not listening to you. You made the faculty a horrible place to have to study, with all your litter everywhere, your noise during lectures, wires tripping people up, the stink of old food, BO and weed. We couldn't use our library because you were so noisy. It seems you forgot that you needed the students' support for this motion and instead decided to make our studying as miserable as possible. I just hope a more respectful protest by amnesty or someone is done to undo the mess you've made and get people back onboard with the cause.

    Oh, and the university has treated you a lot better than you have treated anybody else, so I don't think you can really complain. I hope at least the violent faction of your group is punished.

    ReplyDelete
  11. be careful or you might get kicked out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, while we're on it, what is the deal with the assault? Who attacked whom? I can't find anything by googling.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A law student was attacked on their way to a lecture for refusing to stop and talk about Gaza. Another was pushed into a vending machine for the same reason.

    I don' know if they were smoking in there, or if it was on their clothes but at certain times over the past few days the distinct aroma of weed has filled the air of the lower ground floor.

    ReplyDelete
  14. in that case i'm not surprised the university is done talking.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Okay, let me consider sending down the word "risk".

    ReplyDelete
  16. if you think the uni's so awful, how about you leave? ciao.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You lot have ruined me. Ray Geuss used to be my hero. His support for you has induced a volte face in my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. only a matter of time before you whiny little shits got the smackdown you have so earnestly deserved.

    i'd imagine in the next few days you're going to learn the cruel harsh reality of seeing your actions through the eyes of everyone else rather than your own circle jerking fevered imaginations.

    fuck with the lawyers and we'll fuck with you, except we have proper rules and proper punishments because we're civilized.

    unlike you.

    who are now fucked.

    i am only sorry that you didn't aggravate enough hard working, fee-paying students into introducing you to the business end of the most recent edition of treitel.

    mummy and daddy are going to be so so very upset.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nottingham occupation, with specific mention of the right to protest: http://occupationnottingham.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Having been inside the law faculty since Friday, I take great issue with these allegations. Inside there has been no mention of any physical or pyschological violence, and I urge anyone with experience to the contrary, especially someone being punched, to come forward. In terms of the group, there has been a strict policy of positive interaction with other students, one that shouldn't even really be called a policy, as it's clearly what we want, because any other form of behaviour would be ridiculous and counter-productive. It is a shame that despite the fact that this has been adhered to, these allegations are still floating around.
    I really am sorry if I smell.
    There has been a strict no drugs policy at all times, and while we can hardly vouch for the behaviour of every individual who turns up at the law faculty, I reckon I'd definitely know if people had been smoking weed.
    We're really sorry about inconveniences, but would like to point out that it was actually the Chairman of the faculty who exploited any possible tensions by refusing people who clearly had supervisions to come in, because they had no card. There has been massive support across the university and town for the protest, with letters from academics and politicians flooding in - an early day motion was put before Parliament today. Personally I think attacks on protests that have achieved a hell of a lot for the people of Gaza just because you don't feel quite as comfy in the faculty are pretty reprehensible, but I, and the rest of the occupation, have done as much as possible to not interfere in the day-to-day life within the building.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Inside there has been no mention of any physical or pyschological violence, and I urge anyone with experience to the contrary, especially someone being punched, to come forward."

    I heard this from someone who works in the university, and it was confirmed by a total stranger in this comment box.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's fair to assume that the violent actions of one protester would not have been condoned by the whole, but it would still be wanted kept quiet.

    The more relevant issue is that this is just one of the many ways in which a crowd of people who aren't supposed to be there can cause disruption. If the University finds the disruption unacceptable it's their every right to tell them to take their protest elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "fuck with the lawyers and we'll fuck with you, except we have proper rules and proper punishments because we're civilized."

    Yeah, what a very civilised language, yours... Please, keep civilising us...

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Seconding Will and Camino, my gut reaction is that the matriculated students on the protest were not directly involved. What has happened is, I think, the situation has slipped out of their control (and, despite Nat's disingenuity, individuals have come forward to the authorities).

    Thus, the faculty's concerns are very reasonable. Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of venue.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have been at the law faculty everyday this week going to lectures, and working in the library. I have not felt threatened at any time during this week. The people who i have met have generally been very pleasant. Neither have I found that the occupation has interrupted or disrupted my work or has inconvenienced me. Many of my course friends feel exactly the same way.

    As for the rumours about people being punched or pushed, this is the very first I have heard about it, which is surprising since I have been in and out the law faculty all week, and to be honest I very much doubt it happened, same for the smoking of weed. So please if you are going to criticise the occupation please do it on truthful grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have already sent an e-mail to the director of my Cambridge programme that I plan on un enrolling if the university makes a statement regarding Gaza.

    This is an institution of learning, and it is not the place of such an institution to make political statements regarding international situations. If Cambridge makes a statement here, then I will expect a statement to be made regarding every theoretically questionable practice around the globe.

    The bottom line is that these protesters are inhibiting learning (many law classes have had to be moved to other buildings, so yes, education has been interrupted), the first and foremost obligation of this university. Furthermore they are breaking the law. Next, they are disrupting the peace to pursue their own selfish political agenda (if protesting was your goal you could have done this on Parker's Piece). All while expecting there to be no repercussions. The parallels to Gaza are hardly ironic.

    I sincerely hope that you are summarily expelled and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'll get back to you tomorrow, but my source is solid -- i.e. not a student -- and as I say, someone else here brought it up first.

    Perhaps a member of the occupation could enlighten us.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The punching was reported to the relevant people, was announced in the Equity lecture on Tuesday, the Medical lecture on Monday and the Medical seminar today.

    Whether or not the matter was raised with the protesters I do not know. Why would one lie about such a thing?

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Alec Macpherson does not exist in the Cambridge network on Facebook.

    I suggest that perhaps the University authorities have been flamebaiting and propagandising on the blog and other internet spaces. I certainly wouldn't expect a normal rational law student to constantly squat on the blog of an occupation that they disagree with.

    Given the extremely condescending and dishonourable behaviour of the Chairman, I wouldn't put it past him.

    ReplyDelete
  32. infinity0 certainly is not the name of any real Cambridge student. the university are technological luddites their inability to handle the media is part of the reason the protest has gone on as long as it has done. The university authorities have no concept of propagandising or flame baiting. The punching incident has been confirmed by senior members of the faculty, to call it propaganda is to put the word of a criminal (if you are involved with the protest as of 7:30pm you are a criminal) against some of the worlds most respected academics. I leave reader to draw their own conclusions who to trust...

    ReplyDelete
  33. > The punching incident has been confirmed by senior members of the faculty,
    i call bullshit. none of us at the occupation have heard about anything like this. if anyone punched anyone, it was an agent provocateur. as for my identity that can be found with a minor bit of searching.

    ReplyDelete
  34. > The university authorities have no concept of propagandising or flame baiting.
    at least the Chairman of the Law Faculty has this concept. he has been doing this all week; relocating lectures unnecessarily (etc) to push law students "over the edge", to put it mildly. his attitude towards us has also been extremely hostile, refusing to answer our questions as to the decisions he has made.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And pray tell, why should he have to respond to you at all? Who are you? Other than disruptive individuals who are seeking publicity for your own selfish gain? I am just sorry that you are still at a computer being able to blog rather than behind bars. Why should I have to search if you are so proud of your position. Please, share with us your name.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There has been no punching. This is most likely a rumour (maybe started by zionists who support the killing of as many Gazan children the world will let them get away with.)

    What is happening in Gaza is what has been happening for a long time now even in Jerusalem, let alone in Gaza and the West Bank:

    CBS News:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you Jack for personifying the inability to ever assume any responsibility for your own's actions.

    ReplyDelete
  38. In case ppl didn't get it, yes this Cambridge Occupation is ILLEGAL. That is the whole point. That's why it is called the occupation.

    Now imagine how pissed off you are with this occupation and rightly so. now imagine if the university with all its powers and resources were to occupy our rooms... then you will have noticed a fraction of what is happening to the Palestinian homes in Gaza and Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    The wall is a symbol of racism: to divide Arabs and Israelis, for any Arabs will "pollute" Israel.

    If anyone ever wondered how Nazis were VOTED into power without the world doing something about it, you are seeing it in Israel and Palestine. Both the Israeli gov and Hamas are racist political organisations.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

    ReplyDelete
  39. And, by the way, please stop sanitising your true beliefs... just use the word Jew instead of Zionist... we all know what you really mean anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The only difference is that the world recognises Israel and IDF is stronger than all european countries - so Israel can actually carry out - ethnically cleanse Arabs - what Hamas is trying to do to them.

    While no one recognises Palestine/Hamas' right to exist (and yet Israelis still complain that no one recognises their "right" to "exist" - how can you define such a "right"? What about Palestine's "right to exist"? Why is only Palestine's right to exist dependent on their actions?) According to racist Israelis, Palestinians aren't worth as much as Israelis.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The wall is a symbol of racism: to divide Arabs and Israelis, for any Arabs will "pollute" Israel."

    You are being serious here, right? No, I mean seriously? Thank you Jack, you just made my night... and for a second there I thought you were serious... phew. Thank you for adding humour to the situation... much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  42. nulaw99: do you support Israel's actions in Gaza? Do you support the killing of over 1000 civilians?

    I condemn both sides. The world only condemns the weaker Hamas (EU and US classify it as terrorist org). While Hamas is only capable of killing 4 Israelis in the same times period that Israel bombed universities and schools and civilians indiscriminately.

    I condemn both sides. The world knows about Hamas. They don't condemn Israel though.

    you? do you condone the killing of civilians as long as they are arab?

    ReplyDelete
  43. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

    ReplyDelete
  44. ah yes Jack.. Please write down here how Arabs believe Jews are worth as much as Arabs.

    According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project released on August 14, 2005, high percentages of the populations of six Muslim-majority countries have negative views of Jews. To a questionnaire asking respondents to give their views of members of various religions along a spectrum from "very favorable" to "very unfavorable," 60% of Turks, 88% of Moroccans, 99% of Lebanese Muslims and 100% of Jordanians checked either "somewhat unfavorable" or "very unfavorable" for Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I do not condone the killing of any civilian.

    Praytell Jack, where was your voice when Palestinians were going into Tel Aviv cafes and blowing up Jewish women and children? Please show me the blogs that you wrote on to condemn that.

    Please show me the blogs that you wrote on that condemns Hamas rockets wantonly going into Israel BEFORE the incursion.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I am anxiously awaiting the links...

    ReplyDelete
  47. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

    Noam Chomsky, MIT Professor and Jewish Video on Gaza:
    http://web.mit.edu/cis/starr.html

    Professor Norman Finkelstein vs Martin Indyk (ex-US Ambassador to Israel) over Gaza and the "Peace Process" 1/8/09 Democracy Now (USA respected political analysis news)

    Part 1:
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PH_bcbJ2K_M&feature=channel_page

    Part 2:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFD5e5ZLSqg&feature=related

    Part 3:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLGlEOuhQ5A&feature=related

    Part 4:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDS7Oc4LZSA&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  48. The whole world put sanctions on Hamas and I did my part. Once the gov, out MPs, EU and US and UN got involved, do I as a civilian have more to offer to oppose the Hamas attacks?

    But what has been done to stop the Israeli killings? What have you done to prove to me you oppose Israel's actions?

    Please go educate yourself on the issue and watch the videos, and read up on the history again. I think that's enough education for one night.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Lol.. again Jack, thank you for proving my point. Always the same references... am still awaiting your links in earlier opposition. Also, please continue to enjoy the open forums by which you can convey your messages of hate that you would not have under Hamas rule.

    ReplyDelete
  50. And in future, if you are going to use Jewish academic references, please at least give the common courtesy to not use those who accept astronomical speaking fees from Palestinian support groups.

    ReplyDelete
  51. OK, so im pissed and its 3am. But please get the hell out of my faculty. No, ditch the please, just get out. In case there is any doubt - McGovern v AG 1982 Ch 321, Charities Act 1993 s13. Yup, mosey on upstairs and check them out (the librarian will probably help you if you struggle, although if i was her i would proabbly just throw a weekly law report at you. repeatedly. until you cried.). Demands illegal and impossible for a charity such as the university to comaply with. Total lack of legitimacy for the sit in - i wonder how you would respond if the cause was one you disagreed with. And, finally, i sincerely hope that the university sues your hippy asses to the fullest extent of the law. And the punching (as well as the condom and general weed smell) did happen. Actually finally this time - I am sure the (delightfully polite, given the circumstances) security guards are absolutely thrilled at having to supervise a bunch of little children doing yoga/dancing and sipping the soup prepared by your "catering team". "friendly working relationship with many security staff" my right bollock.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thanks for the VC's email.
    As a Cambridge graduate myself I have just emailed him, urging him to bring an end to this occupation as quickly as possible and without conceding to any demands.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The Chairman of the faculty has been "hostile" towards the occupation?
    How amazing is that!
    And I really love the idea that you are "intimidated" by that fact that if you leave you won't be allowed back in?
    WTF did you expect?

    Meanwhile I see that the UN Humanitarian Affairs chief has attacked Hamas for its cynical use of civilian facilities, which of course includes educational facilities.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059475.html

    I assume you would like the university to condemn this too?

    Oh, sorry, I forgot, only one side is to blame here.

    ReplyDelete
  54. ChrisC - the VC is female.
    Maybe you should check out who you are emailing before you make sexist assumptions

    ReplyDelete
  55. > And pray tell, why should he have to respond to you at all?
    rational dialogue. your reasoning is extremely hypocritical.

    > And I really love the idea that you are "intimidated" by that fact that if you leave you won't be allowed back in?
    coercion during negotiations is unacceptable. do not leave out part of the story.

    ReplyDelete
  56. > But please get the hell out of my faculty.
    you really are a spoilt little sh1t. palestinian students barely have faculties. what we are doing is fuck all. grow some fuck1ng tolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "coercion during negotiations is unacceptable. do not leave out part of the story."

    how is it coercion? you occupied their building; they, after five days, say that if you leave you can't come back. if you're going to occupy it, occupy it.

    i asked before, but: according to one post yesterday evening, you were told to respond by 7pm. did you? from the post it was ambiguous.

    ReplyDelete
  58. coercion is unacceptable?
    what would you call occupying a university facility if not coercion?

    ReplyDelete
  59. and seriously, while the palestinians certainly don't have the same educational facilities as you do in cambridge, they have better learning conditions than many MANY people around the world. they have dozens of aid groups helping them. they get hundreds of millions of euros in direct aid every year.

    other people don't even have a nearby university to go to, assuming they actually graduated from a nearby high school (which they don't have either). after they finished elementary school (if they weren't busy working)
    what have you done for them?

    your interest in these people is not because you're tolerant. it's because you are _intolerant_. to israel.

    seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Just thought to let you know of this poll..

    http://www.srcf.ucam.org/ffsc/poll/?votingsuccess=6

    It's an opinion poll on Cambridge University's stance on various issues
    linked to the current situation in Gaza, so hopefully a chance for students
    to have some input.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Well spoken Jack, i completely agree on your 2.34 comment!

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I just want to say something in response to Jack's repeated rants concerning "racism" and "ethnic cleansing" and "walls to divide Jews from Arabs" and how Israelis think "Arabs pollute Israel".

    20% of Israel's internal population is Arab Muslim. These Arabs enjoy full legal rights including the right to vote and the right to public services. They have more legal rights than they would have as citizens of Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Gaza or the West Bank.

    Anti-Israelis have such trouble accounting for this anomalous evidence that they never, ever mention it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. My word, Infinity, you're becoming unglued.

    >> Alec Macpherson does not exist in the Cambridge network on Facebook.

    Oh, diddums, is that nasty man invading your carefully selected talking shop?

    >> I suggest that perhaps the University authorities have been flamebaiting and propagandising on the blog and other internet spaces.

    This is a public blog, you delusional, paranoid loonie. You cannot tell me or anyone else what to do.

    >> none of us at the occupation have heard about anything like this.

    Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    >> if anyone punched anyone, it was an agent provocateur.

    Rational minds would see this as a failure on the protest's part in letting such individuals in, but you afford yourself immunity from prosecution. You're nothing but a hypocrite.

    >> as for my identity that can be found with a minor bit of searching.

    Why don't you tell us, as you're so keen on unmasking or depersoning others.

    >> i call bullshit

    >> you really are a spoilt little sh1t.

    >> what we are doing is fuck all.

    >> grow some fuck1ng tolerance.

    And you're a sub-literate, foul mouthed totalitarian bully in the grip of the major narcissistic injury.

    JACK >> This is most likely a rumour (maybe started by zionists who support the killing of as many Gazan children the world will let them get away with.)

    And you're another sub-Leninist gimp. There was a Police chief in Berlin...

    >> The wall is a symbol of racism:

    The "wall" is predominately fence and not commenced on until wave after wave of murderous attacks on Israeli civilians, which it has abated.

    >> to divide Arabs and Israelis, for any Arabs will "pollute" Israel.

    Like 20% of the population?

    >> ChrisC - the VC is female. Maybe you should check out who you are emailing before you make sexist assumptions

    It is commonplace to use the male pronouns when referring to senior position. Regrettable, but to bundle it with all sexism or imply bad faith on the speaker is yet more passive aggression and trying to shut-down the argument on the basis on non-points.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "This is a wholly unacceptable way for an institute of education to behave towards its own members engaged in a peaceful protest."

    Being peaceful is not an excuse for trespass. Owners of property do not lose the right to remove trespassers from the property just because the trespassers are being peaceful.

    ReplyDelete
  66. > how is it coercion? you occupied their building;
    how is the threat of force not coercion??

    > what would you call occupying a university facility if not coercion?
    in what way did we threaten force against the law faculty??

    > This is a public blog, you delusional, paranoid loonie. You cannot tell me or anyone else what to do.
    when did i tell you what to do? sorry mate, you're the one over-reacting against me pointing out the possibility of nefarious bullshit (which student movements have all seen from the authorities, by the way, this is nothing new)

    > And you're a sub-literate, foul mouthed totalitarian bully in the grip of the major narcissistic injury.
    oh noes! i used swear words! I AM A FASCIST TOTALITARIAN

    ReplyDelete
  67. > Rational minds would see this as a failure on the protest's part in letting such individuals in, but you afford yourself immunity from prosecution. You're nothing but a hypocrite.

    sorry, mate. if you've been with the occupation you will know that any decisions made as THE GROUP is made by a very precise and long democratic process.

    THE GROUP has not endorsed punching. if anyone did it, it was as an individual, and any rational system of ethics cannot possibly justify "prosecution".

    ReplyDelete
  68. > Being peaceful is not an excuse for trespass.
    this is debatable - property is not the most fundamental "right" there is.

    however, the point is that it was extremely dishonourable of the university to use such tactics when **negotiations were still open and unfinalised**

    > according to one post yesterday evening, you were told to respond by 7pm. did you?

    it was around that time, within 5 minutes either way. we had been drafting it for about 3-4 hours.

    ReplyDelete
  69. >> sorry, mate. if you've been with the occupation you will know that any decisions made as THE GROUP is made by a very precise and long democratic process.

    W.T.F? You're just said that any physical assaults were the result of agents provocateur who'd have to have gained access to the building without DA GROUP's knowledge; now you're claiming that every action or decision which has taken place did so with DA GROUP's full knowledge.

    This is gibberish.

    >> this is debatable - property is not the most fundamental "right" there is.

    Are you now suggesting the University is directly involved with Israeli rule over the A.Ts? I know, there's a bank robbery going down somewhere, and I'm off to 'occupy' some college rooms! Don't anyone dare stop me until the bank robbery is halted!

    You're loosing it mate.

    ReplyDelete
  70. > W.T.F? You're just said that any physical assaults were the result of agents provocateur who'd have to have gained access to the building without DA GROUP's knowledge; now you're claiming that every action or decision which has taken place did so with DA GROUP's full knowledge.

    do you understand the idea of "maybe" and "if"? re-read what i wrote.

    > Are you now suggesting the University is directly involved with Israeli rule over the A.Ts?

    i don't understand how you get this from what i said. is this "lawyer logic"?

    perhaps i am being too harsh on lawyers. in which case, you probably should quit and become a propaganda minister or something.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I am entirely undecided on whether I agree with the aims of this occupation. I do, however, strongly disagree with those who seem to think that merely because it is inconvenient it should not be allowed. Almost all organisations are prone to apathy until presented with an unavoidable confrontation - this is why workers go on strike! This protest could have been staged on Parker's Piece; we all would have ignored it, and nothing would have been done.

    I agree that 'being peaceful is not an excuse for trespass'. Equally, trespassing is not an excuse for not being allowed to eat.

    I am disappointed with those on both sides of this debate who are all too happy to resort to personal attacks, or to turn what is clearly (to me) a humanitarian protest into a political one. Aside from this, I applaud those involved for standing up for their beliefs and attempting to help. Even if you are wrong, I much prefer misguided philanthropy to cynical apathy; at the end of the day I'd rather say 'I tried to help' than 'I told you so'. Wouldn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  72. >> do you understand the idea of "maybe" and "if"? re-read what i wrote.

    You said, "if anyone punched anyone, it was an agent provocateur". Either someone admitted to the faculty property as part of your occupation has been assaulting staff and/or students, with or without DA GROUP's knowledge; or members of DA GROUP are meting out summary justice to suspected infiltrators.

    Of course, it may not to be to say that an agent provocateur did the punching, but it says an agent provocateur was punched. So, I'm sure a quick check with the plaintive can determine if they were plants. Now you're risking libel!

    >> i don't understand how you get this from what i said. is this "lawyer logic"?

    >> perhaps i am being too harsh on lawyers. in which case, you probably should quit and become a propaganda minister or something.

    I'm not a lawyer, you numpty.

    ReplyDelete
  73. >> Equally, trespassing is not an excuse for not being allowed to eat.

    This would be relevant if, on departing from the faculty, food is with-held from former protesters, or that food supplies they brought into the faculty were seized. As it stands, the faculty is simply preventing the passage of certain items into its property.

    This should have been held this in Billy Bunter's college.

    ReplyDelete
  74. >>This would be relevant if, on departing from the faculty, food is with-held from former protesters

    Both legally and morally, 2 wrongs do not make a right. You cannot starve trespassers any more than you can set fire to the building to flush them out - 'He could have used the fire escape if he wanted to' is not a valid defence. Equally if a protester starves in there, or more likely one of them is diabetic and goes hypoglycaemic the University will be liable, and quite rightly so.

    >>or that food supplies they brought into the faculty were seized.

    "Shorty after 9pm, the Proctors arrived... While complying with their requests we found them throwing away the food that our catering group had prepared." From the post we are commenting on, no less.

    ReplyDelete
  75. > You said, "if anyone punched anyone, it was an agent provocateur". Either someone admitted to the faculty property as part of your occupation has been assaulting staff and/or students, with or without DA GROUP's knowledge; or members of DA GROUP are meting out summary justice to suspected infiltrators.

    please elaborate. as far as i can see this is a non-sequitur. (a => b) does not imply a or b, or anything else.

    > Of course, it may not to be to say that an agent provocateur did the punching, but it says an agent provocateur was punched.

    oh god, this is a really desparate argument. blame english if you will, but my meaning was pretty clear. giving the context, "it" clearly referred to the subject of the previous clause.

    > I'm not a lawyer, you numpty.

    oh well, only my insult falls. the actual point still stands.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  77. ADAM >> "Shorty after 9pm, the Proctors arrived... While complying with their requests we found them throwing away the food that our catering group had prepared." From the post we are commenting on, no less.

    Given the woeful argument we've received from Infinity - we're not willing to work when we can extort money - in an attempt to save face, I'll take this with a pinch of salt.

    There is also the matter of their having entered private property without reasonable food preparation facilities or with argument that they had no alternative accommodation. They are not homeless vagrants. Your efforts to compare this to a besieged squatting group, e.g. a shanty village without provisions and surrounded by a state militia, is disingenuous to say the very least.

    They tried to take on the people who write and study the laws in England and Wales.

    Whoopsie.

    INFINITY >> please elaborate. as far as i can see this is a non-sequitur. (a => b) does not imply a or b, or anything else.

    I thought it was an a priori argument. I don't intend to get mired down further in your efforts to apply the most tortuously literal definitions of a word or phrase or pursuing non-points.

    There was a Police chief in Berlin...

    >> oh well, only my insult falls. the actual point still stands.

    Why, because you say so? Dream on!

    Please tell us your name!!!

    ReplyDelete
  78. I think it is time inject some reality that is reflective of the institution we are - if for nothing else, to perhaps redeem our University in the eyes of outsiders reading this blog. I was angered by this purportedly 'peaceful' protest and it took some time to put my finger on why exactly. Then, in the course of my reading, I came across a quote:

    "Studies of the radical protest movement at the University of California Berkeley have shown that it was fueled not only by individuals with high moral levels, but also by those at the lowest levels - people who used the movement as a vent for repressed anger. These amoral individuals [NB: i.e. you 'occupiers'] justified their behavior in terms of the values articulated by the morally mature activists, but directed their actions as much toward the fulfillment of their own individual needs and the expression of personal hostility as toward the achievement of social goals."*

    At the end of the article, the author explains that these 'activists' who demand empathy, but do not grant it, who demand change, but do not have the support of the underlying majority - yet try to challenge the authority, take on a predatory (or authoritarian) approach to seek power. This then invokes a predatory response from the authority since there are no channels for empathy or communication, as the 'activists' become steadfast that they are morally right. In other words, you asked for what you got by your choice of method! At the same time, you have undermined those who really do selflessly support in 'the cause.'

    Should you need any proof that your protest was not fueled by the plight of Gaza, but your own selfish needs - have a look at the result - you have raised awareness to how annoying inconsiderate people are - you haven't provoked a sensible debate on the issue (not least because you failed to bring objective facts to the table, esp in your non-informative posters - which was a waste of paper, I might add). And, in my case, you have more highly polarised the issue, rather than invoking a sympathetic response - mainly because your approach that reflected a 'lower moral development' eerily parallels with that of Hamas (reeking of injustice and ruthless disregard of for others in your quest to make your 'point'). Perhaps you identify with them more than you think and this has caused you to lose objective focus and prevented you from orchestrating a well-thought out fundraising drive, for example - or maybe that would have flat-out taken too much effort and you didn't feel like waiting. Instead of resolutely refusing to admit your gross mistakes, it may be time to read about why your protest was so unsuccessful - along with the other occupations across universities in the UK (let's be honest, nothing concrete was promised in what you are calling 'successes,' apart from assurances to 'look into it' - read the wording more carefully if you believe otherwise. In turn, other people are currently raising money by organizing fundraising events). And if you're not curious to do this reading, it may be in your best interest to leave our institution where scholarly inquiry is paramount.

    On a closing note, for those academics who supported this deplorable and self-defeating form of protest, I suggest you either seek another line of profession, or at least see a shrink to explore the sources of your mis-directed hostility and seemingly histrionic tendencies.

    See Richard W. Wilson (1983). Moral development and political change. World Politics, 36, p. 53-75.

    ReplyDelete
  79. >> to perhaps redeem our University in the eyes of outsiders reading this blog.

    I have very high opinions of your University after reading this blog! It's certainly improved after the Clare College bruhaha over the Motoons.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Canino,

    You said that you would confirm today that someone was punched. No confirmation so far. This seems completely false to me. Come on guys, if someone had been punched, don't you think the university would have published a statement condemning it?

    Let's stop making up news without any proof.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Capitán Askateth Harper, don't you think that Infinity's willingness to believe it but attribute it to actors outwith DA GROUP's control, but who'd entered as part of the protest, suggests at least some of DA GROUP wouldn't care if someone were physically assaulted?

    P.S. Love the way you call Edward up on his language, but not Infinity. Please desist implying you're a dispassionate observer.

    ReplyDelete
  82. It is mature to consider the use of strong and wrenching action if you feel that your cause is just. The world is deaf to complaints and keeps on churning along on the behalf of the rich and the politically connected. Not to put to fine a point on it: put up or shut up.

    ReplyDelete