100th British soldier killed in Iraq
A British soldier from the 7th Armoured Brigade was killed by an explosion in southern Iraq this morning, the 100th UK serviceman to die since the invasion in March 2003.
The Ministry of Defence said three other soldiers were hurt, one seriously, in the blast which took place on Tuesday morning in Um Qasr, Basra province.
Do you think that now we hit a nice round number, Tony might remember how many British servicemen have died in Iraq?
Was going to write something - usual hoots of derision stuff - about the idea of having ‘Pet Police’, but Longrider’s nicely saved me the time and is well worth a visit.
Go there and enjoy and then ponder this - based on what you’ve just read, how long do you think it will be before the government get around to Public Hygene Bill with a code of conduct for wiping your arse - you know the kind of thing, how many sheets to use, whether you should wipe front-to-back or back-to-front, that kind of thing.
If this is anything to go by then not as long as you’d hope.
German ad boss apologises to bloggers
The leader of a campaign to cheer up German citizens has been forced to apologise after dismissing weblogs as “the toilet walls of the internet”.
Jean-Remy von Matt, the head of the leading German advertising agency Jung von Matt, fired off a furious internal email to colleagues after his “du bist Deutschland” campaign was criticised by the media and in cyberspace by bloggers.
“What on earth gives every computer owner the right to exude his opinion, unasked for? … and most bloggers really just exude,” he wrote.
The blogging community responded furiously when Mr von Matt’s comments were leaked on the internet, calling him a “low-level moron” and accusing him of blaming his audience for the failure of his campaign.
I love that one bit - “what on earth gives every computer owner the right to exude his opinion, unasked for?”
Because we can.
Makes you wonder just what kind internal memos have been flying around the DCMS of late given the hoots of derision that met the ‘Icons of England’ project - I notice that foxhunting is still in top position in the nominations.
Nice of the Torygraph to give a platform to Stephen C Meyer, one of the leading proponents of the supposed ‘theory’ of intelligent design, as his article nicely illustrates everything that is wrong with this unscientific piece of crap and its supporters.
That life evolves is a matter of fact. More than that it an observable fact as anyone working in the field of virology or bacteriology will happily explain. Viruses mutate and evolve, which is where we get everything from nasty new strains of bird flu to hospital superbugs to rats that are immune to warfarin from.
Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory inasmuch as it explains how things evolve in response to environmental pressures. Again this can be observed and tested in the real world, and has so far stood up to every test put to it. It’s not difficult to understand; if we take the humble rat and alter its environment by laying poison for them, then they die; and they keep on dying until a minor genetic variation results in a rat that survives the poison through having developed a resistance or immunity to its effects. That rat breeds with other rats, passing on its genetic code and, hey presto, we have a whole bunch of evolved rats who don’t die when we try to poison them.
The same process applied to bacteria and antibiotics and to viruses and anti-viral agents.
Frankly, were I a doctor and there really was such a thing as an intelligent designer, then I’d be wanting to know who they are, where they are and, most inportantly of all, what it would take to get them to piss off and stop fucking designing all the nasty, shitty illnesses that keep making people sick and messing up my nice orderly hospital.
Alternatively, I suppose the drug companies would be paying them to keep right on designing away as this whole new illness things gives them a nice steady stream of profits.
But all that it by the by - there is no intelligent designer, its all a bullshit hoax anyway.
There are many things I could pick on to show why ID is a pile of crap, but the one thing I want to pick up on here is its proponents claims that it is evidence-based.
Scientific methodology is based on a very simple principle - you take a question to which the answer is unknown or incomplete, you examine the evidence, derive a hypothesis from that evidence and then use more evidence, derived from experiment and observation to test that hypothesis - and you keep right on testing against new and more detailed evidence over and over again. If you then fail to find evidence to contradict your hypothesis, your theory stands up - at least until the next test and the next batch of evidence.
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been tested in this way for more than 100 and has stood up to every test, hence it is treated and taught as science.
ID, on the other hand, commits one of the cardinal sins of scientific enquiry inasmuch as it is selective in its use of evidence - it doesn’t test the theory against evidence, it mere chooses evidence to fit the theory and ignores everything else. Meyer actually does this right from the outset of his article by citing the apparent ‘conversion’ of philosopher Anthony Flew to deism:
In 2004, the distinguished philosopher Antony Flew of the University of Reading made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism and affirmed the reality of some kind of a creator. Flew cited evidence of intelligent design in DNA and the arguments of “American [intelligent] design theorists” as important reasons for this shift.
Of course what Meyer neglects to mention is that Flew, in 2005, went on to reject both the fine-tuning argument and his earlier claims that DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories, both of which are essential to the workings of Intelligent Design - Flew remains a deist, so far as I know, but one who’s conception of a supreme being is strictly non-interventionist after the point of creation (the big bang), a view which rules out a belief in intelligent design or an intelligent designer in the form supported by Meyer and others.
I’ll pass over the matter of ‘irreducable complexity’, which used to relate to the eye until it was debunked, and now rests on the flagellum bacteria, which has also been solidly debunked as well, much as Meyer and others desperately cling to this idea, and move on to this statement:
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know that information - whether, say, in hieroglyphics or radio signals - always arises from an intelligent source. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed: “Information habitually arises from conscious activity.” So the discovery of digital information in DNA provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a causal role in its origin.
Information may well habitually arise from conscious activity but as any physicist worth their research grant can tell you the universe is full of information which does not rely on conscious thought - information does not always arise from an intelligent source, that is mere anthropic conceit on Meyer’s part. It is perhaps no great surprise that Meyer avoids this topic and merely makes his unsupportable and entirely false claim about information, the physics of information derives primarily from quantum theory, which the ID lobby tend to studiously avoid, due in no small measure, to their inability to take on and refute Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle - there being no room for a designer in a universe that is intrinsicly random at the sub-atomic level.
In short, Meyer’s contention here is utter nonsense.
Not much more to say really, other than to note that Meyer’s Phd is in the philosophy of science and its to philosophy that one must turn to refute his contention that ID is not based on religion.
Let’s us take, for a moment, the hypothesis that there is such a thing as an intelligent designer. Now ask yourself this - where did this designer come from? Who designed the designer?
There are only two possible answers to this question. Either it is no one, that the supposed designer has always existed or came into being by a process of spontaneous self-creation and, therefore, exists outside of the confines space-time - in which case the designer is god and ID is based on religion, or there must be an infinite series of designers, all of whom are out there in an infinite universe designing new designers - in which case you have a reductio ad absurdum.
AS far as I can see Meyer has yet, as a philosopher, to attempt to tackle this question - perhaps he should before continuing to claim that intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.
Coming up to a year of these (is it really that long) but always unmissable.
You know the drill by now, the usual round-up of bloggy goodness courtesy of the estimable Mr Worstall, go visit - you know it makes sense.
ID cards would be of “limited value” against terror and would not have prevented the London attacks in July, says the reviewer of anti-terror laws.
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile said he had changed his mind on identity cards, which he had previously backed.
“I can’t think of many terrorist incidents, in fact I can think of very few… that ID cards would have brought to an earlier end,” he told GMTV.
The bill introducing the ID cards plan is currently going through Parliament.
It recently suffered two defeats in the Lords, with peers wanting an entirely voluntary scheme, and ministers wanting people applying for new passports and driving licences to be obliged to go on the ID card register.
“ID cards could be of some value in the fight against terrorism but they are probably of quite limited value,” Lord Carlile told GMTV’s Sunday programme.
You know it. I know it. Now even the government’s own advisor on anti-terrorist legislation knows it.
So why can’t the Safety Elephant see it?
Answers on a postcard to Charles Clarke MP c/o the Home Office.
I’ve now managed to track down a copy of the Birmingham University Evangelical Christian Union’s constitution and, quite frankly, I really can’t see what the Birmingham University guild of Student’s problem is.
It is a perfectly legal consitution, to start with, and contains nothing that would be impermissible in Charity Law.
As far as the issue of the group’s doctrinal basis is concerned, this is stated in the consititution but members are not required to sign-up explicitly to to it, the membership clause stating:
5. Membership
5.1. Membership of a Society shall be open to all Guild Members subject to:
5.1.1. Subscription to the following declaration; “In joining the Christian Union I declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour, Lord and God. I understand and commit to the four aims of the CU.”
5.1.2. Specific exemptions as provided in the Guild Constitution and Bye-laws.
5.1.3. The discretion of the BUECU Executive Committee where it is believed that admission to membership may result in the Society’s disrepute. Such a decision is subject to appeal at Guild Council.
5.2. Membership of the Society shall itself not be deemed to confirm membership of the Guild or any of the privileges pertaining thereto.
5.3. Membership is to be renewed annually.
So what it actually asks for is for that members aign-up to its objectives, which are:
3. Objectives of the Society
3.1. The objectives of the Society shall be:
3.1.1. To proclaim Jesus Christ as God Incarnate, Saviour and Lord to all students at The University of Birmingham, and to seek to lead them to a personal faith in Him
3.1.2. For members to grow in their spiritual life by Bible teaching, Bible study, prayer and fellowship
3.1.3. To obey God’s commission to make disciples of all nations, by praying, giving financially and going out to proclaim the gospel in all the world, in the short and long term
3.1.4. To help members and other students to explore, assert and apply biblical truth to every issue of private and working life and public concern
3.2. All activities of the Society must be related to these objectives.
So clearly it is a proselytizing organisation and one which sets, as an objective, the goal of converting other students to its beliefs, which may not go down to well with some, but as long as the group’s members aer not aggressive in their approach to the point of harassing other students, then this presents no real problems.
The worst that could be said here is that if these objectives are followed by its members to the letter, then they may struggle to make friends along the way, as there as few things more irritating than a one trick pony with only one topic of conversation but as I’m assuming that the group’s members are not a bunch of complete social misfits with no capacity for understanding that harping on about god constantly while in the company of people who don’t share their beliefs is going to prove intensely irritating, there are no real problems with these objectives in the wider sense of them being the aims of the group.
To prove my point here, what follows are the charitable objects of the Banstead Community Church, registered charity number 1110667, who were registered as a charity on 1 August 2005.
To proclaim, advance, practice and teach the Christian faith and in particular:
a) to worship god;
b) to make known the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ alone;
c) to teach Christian truth and doctrine as found only in the bible and to refute error;
d) to encourage those who turn to Christ in repentance and faith to become his faithful, worshipping and obedient disciples;
e) to equip Christians for ministry and encourage them to use their talents and spiritual gifts for the glory of god;
f) to express Christian faith by all means consistent with bible teaching, including social action and community involvement.
Now there really is nothing too different between this Church’s objects and the objects of BUECU, is there?
The Guild of Student’s other objection is to the method by which BUECU’s exective committee is elected, which is set out as follows.
12. Executive Committee selection
12.1. The BUECU Executive Committee shall have the responsibility to propose people for the positions on the new Committee, and pray for them.
12.2. Between the end of week 6 and the end of week 8 of the Autumn term nominations for the BUECU Executive Committee may be invited from members of BUECU if the Executive Committee wishes to do so. Each nomination should be seconded by another BUECU member, with the nominee’s permission. Alternatively, the executive committee may invite members of BUECU to suggest suitable candidates without the candidate’s knowledge.
12.3. At least 4 weeks before the AGM the list of proposed people shall then be communicated to all BUECU members and displayed on the BUECU notice board.
12.4. BUECU members who are not proposed by the BUECU Executive Committee and wish to be considered may have their name displayed under the title ‘Independent Proposals’.
12.5. Up to 2 weeks before the AGM members who have any difficulties concerning the people proposed should approach any BUECU Executive Committee member. The Executive Committee has responsibility to deal with these problems as and when they arise.
12.6. A ballot will be held at the AGM in the Spring term to determine the new Executive Committee members. A simple majority of the members voting will be required for each position.
Now to translate that from legalese to English, the process is as follows:
1. The outgoing Executive Committee may either openly invite nominations from members, which must be seconded, or invite nominations from members without those nominees being told that they are being nominated.
2. From these nominees, the Executive Committee draws up a list of nominees that it is happy to support, which is issued to all members, four weeks before the elections at the AGM.
This is what we call in politics ‘drawing up a slate’ and is pretty much standard practice in political parties.
People who don’t make the slate but wish to stand for election can also add their names to the list of candidates as ‘independents’.
Up to two weeks before the AGM, members can raise any problems they might have about a particular candidate with the Executive Committee, just as before an AGM in any other democratic organisation, members may object to a candidate being put forward if there are questions about their eligibility.
At the AGM the Executive Committee, which appears to consist of 10 members, each of which has a specific role, are elected by simple majority vote of the members, and it is being on elected to the Executive Committee that a requirement to sign-up explicitly to the doctrinal basis of the group applies.
Now is this so very unreasonable? In my estimation, no it isn’t.
Electorally, all the group are doing is being open about a practice - putting up a slate - that goes on semi-openly or privately in many elections. The fact that are open about it makes no difference to whether the elections themselves are democratic or not, the members of the group still have right to reject the outgoing committee’s preferred candidate in favour or an independent on a majority vote.
As for the matter of committee members being required to agree formally to the doctrinal statement of the group, well isn’t that to be expected. This is a group with a specific take on Christianity that its leaders are expected to agree to an uphold - you may not, even if you are a Christian, agree with that take, but can anyone really say that unreasonable for the group to insist on this, anymore that it would be unreasonable for the Church of England to insist that the Archbishop of Canterbury is an Anglican or the Catholic church insist that the Pope should be a Catholic?
It is not, to my understanding, the case that this is the only Christian group operating on campus or that it is trying to exclude other such groups from affiliating to the Student Union, so where’s the problem? If you a Christian and their particular brand of Christianity doesn’t suit you, then go find another group with a view of relgion which does fits your personal beliefs.
And if you don’t take their view of Christianity, then why should you want to be a member anyway?
If I have any criticism of BUECU’s constitution at all, it is a minor one and easily remedied. The group could incorporate a form of open associate membership, without voting rights or the right to stand for election, for those who may be interested in joining the group with a view to learning more about them and their view of Christianity, but without requiring them to formally sign-up to full and absolute agreement with the group’s doctrinal statement - this would require a minor change in wording of the statement signed on becoming a member (clause 5.1.1) replacing the word more directive term ‘commit’ with the less-loaded term ’support’.
This parallels the practice in the LGBT association which allows associate membership for those who are uncertain, on joining, of their sexuality.
The only other minor criticism I can level at BUECU lies in their efforts to move changes to the Guild’s ‘mandatory clauses’ to seek a specific exemption for themselves from those terms which are being used to justify their disaffiliation, why I consider that it would have been much more useful all around had they moved more general amendments which would have permitted all groups to apply reasonable constraints on membership, in line with the same principles in charity law, where there is good reason to so do - not least as this would potentially have gained the group support from other societies, not least of which other religious societies but also those representing other minority groups, in their efforts.
I can well understand why BUECU took the approach they did. They, after all, were responding to a specific situation which directly affected them, but a more a global approach would have both avoiding creating the impression that they were in it only for their own interests and would benefit a wide range of groups by challeging a regime which, so it seems to me, desperately needs to be challenged.
That being said, I remain of the view that Birmingham University’s Guild of Students are clearly and unequivocally in the wrong in this matter, hence the blatant sophistry of their efforts to pass the buck and blame the law rather than take responsibility for their intransigence and unreasonable conduct.
Another piece on the Birmingham University Guild of Students’s war on freedom of association this morning, this time in the Birmingham Post.
Can’t say that I’m overfond of the Christian Union’s histrionic comment about Satanists taking over or the obligatory references to ‘it’s political correctness gone mad’ (twice) but the general thrust of their argument is sound.
It also provides another opportunity to marvel at the legal ignorance of Student Union president, Richard Angell:
Richard Angell, president of the guild, said: “They are disaffiliated. Under the Education Act we are only allowed to let affiliated societies use our facilities. Because they don’t comply we can’t let them use our facilities.”
Wrong. The Education Act, if by which he means the 1994 Act, says nothing of the sort. Having disaffiliated the Christian Union they may no be unable to use the SU’s facilities because they would no longer be covered by it’s insurance, but that has nothing to do with the Education Act at all.
Try again, Richard.
He said refusal to allow non-Christians to be members would have “denied other students their right to join the society and limit membership on quite a tight doctrinal basis.”
Mr Angell said the ECU’s rules for membership were not just about being Christian but required members to be evangelical too.
“They are welcome to go through our recognition process. If they wish to become a society they are welcome to accept our mandatory clauses which we can’t compromise on because it’s the law.”
Again, this is complete bullshit. Over the last few years, in my former job, I registered with the Charity Commission several Evangelical Churches with doctrinal restrictions on membership near identical to those applied by the Chirstian Union - not one of them was turned down for registration.
The ‘mandatory clauses’ that Angell refers to can be found in this document. These are not, however, merely mandatory clauses but a near complete model constitution. They are, in addition, not part of the law nor are the Guild required to use such clause by law - it is entirely their decision to make use of this model constitution in this specific form, not a legal obligation.
A spokeswoman from Birmingham University said: “The University of Birmingham is aware of the internal dispute between the Birmingham University Evangelical Christian Union and the University of Birmingham Guild of Students.
“The University’s charter, and general law, requires the university not to discriminate on the grounds of religion and the university is proud of the fact that its charter was one of the first in the country to include an anti-discriminatory clause.”
Yes. Thank you Birmingham University, that was completely unhelpful.
The last thing to pick up here is this statement from the minutes of the Guild meeting at which the Christian Union tried to appeal against disaffiliation.
“Stuart Mathers Vice President (Student Activities): all student groups have to follow Guild Council policy, this only allows two groups to limit members one is Nitleine [sic] and the other is Student Advice and that is due to the limits no [sic] the numbers that can be trained. All groups must follow Guild Policy.”
Mathers is, here, either sadly ignorant of the contents of the constituion of the Guild’s LGBT association, or he is lying.
Specifically:
3 MEMBERSHIP
4.1 Categories
Membership shall be divided into the following categories:
4.1.1 Full Members
4.1.2 Associate Members4.2 Full Members
4.2.1 Eligibility
Only the following shall be eligible for Full Membership
4.2.1.1 All Guild Members who self-define as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or as questioning their sexuality.
4.2.2 Entitlement
Subject to this Constitution and subject to the Guild’s Disciplinary Procedure, Full Members shall be entitled only to:
4.2.2.1 vote in Association elections as provided for in the Constitution;
4.2.2.2 attend, speak and vote at General Meetings;
4.2.2.3 attend and speak at meetings of the Committee and any of its sub-committees as established;
4.2.2.4 submit motions to General Meetings;
4.2.2.5 be elected to any office in the Association;
4.2.2.6 be elected or appointed as a representative of the Association on Guild Council;
4.2.2.7 use any of the facilities provided by the Association
4.2.2.8 relinquish their membership upon notification in writing to the President.4.3 Associate Members
4.3.1 Eligibility
Only the following shall be eligible for Associate Membership:
4.3.1.1 Any Guild Member who requests support and advice relating to sexuality or gender identity.
4.3.1.2 Any Guild Member, upon a vote of absolute majority by the Committee4.3.2 Entitlement
Subject to this Constitution and subject to the Guild’s Disciplinary Procedure, Associate Members shall be entitled only to:
4.3.2.1 use of any facilities provided by the Association
4.3.2.2 relinquish their membership upon notification in writing to the President.
As anyone who understands constitutions will immediately realise, this clause restricts full membership of the LGBT Association, and therefore the right ot speak at meeting, vote ans stand for election to it committees, exclusively to Student who:
self-define as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or as questioning their sexuality.
I’m reaching for a word here… Mmm what was is? Ah yes…
BUSTED
I make no pretence about my loathing of discrimination in all its many putrid forms, and this quite blatantly a case of discrimination as well as rank hypocrisy.
In fact BUGS should consider itself fortunate that I’ve already picked up a Bloody Devil award for my rant about bureacrats this week otherwise there would certainly be another one of similar order on its way.
Credit where credits due, this was also spotted by Scott at the Daily Ablution.
As ever, the comments box is open and any member of the Guild Council is welcome to defend their position openly by using it. In particular I would be interested to see Richard Angell justify his constant whining that ‘it’s the law’ by pointing out specifically on which laws and where in those laws, his contention is based, because I have yet to find anything in statute which backs him and am, therefore, inclined to the view that he is talking out his arse at the same time as trying to cover it.
The furore over Birmingham University Guild of Students (BUGS) decision to effectively shut down the University’s Evangelical Christian Union rumbles on, with the Guild attracting all the wrong headlines.
In fact, tonight’s local press is carrying another story (not online as yet so no link) claiming that the National Blood Service has been barred by the SU for allegedly ‘discriminating’ against gay men - if the story is correct then it would appear the SU has decided that the National Blood Service’s observance of NHS policy, which classes gay men as ‘high risk’ for infections such as HIV and Hepatitis and therefore excludes them from giving blood falls foul of the SU’s anti-discrimination policy.
As I only saw this in passing, I can’t verify the validy of the story as yet, but if this is true then it would certain back up the view that those in charge of the Guild are distinctly short on common sense, like our friend below.
Going back to the Christian Union issue, the Birmingham Mail has published this ‘explanation’ from Union President, Richard Angell, in trying to justify the Guild’s actions:
Birmingham University’s Student Guild said it was merely enforcing the 1994 Education Act which states student societies have to be open to all.
It said 15 faith groups on campus - including the Islamic Society, the Sikh Society and a non-evangelical Christian body - had already complied with the regulations.
Guild president Richard Angell said: “It is not about faith, it is about complying with the law.
“Our members have the right to stand for the executive committee of any society they join. Our societies must be democratic and must not discriminate based on religion.”
A solicitor acting for the evangelists has warned the guild it will be issued with court proceedings unless the funds are returned.
Now, having read the relevant sections of the Education Act 1994, which relate to Student Unions (s20-22), either Mr Angell and his colleagues at the Guild do not understand the law or they are simply citing it to cover their collective arses.
I will omit s21 from consideration here as this mere1y defines in which kinds of educational establishments a Student Union may operate.
Section 22 is the section which regulates how Student Union’s operate, as below:
22.—(1) The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that any students’ union for students at the establishment operates in a fair and democratic manner and is accountable for its finances.
(2) The governing body shall in particular take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that the following requirements are observed by or in relation to any students’ union for students at the establishment—
(a) the union should have a written constitution;
(b) the provisions of the constitution should be subject to the approval of the governing body and to review by that body at intervals of not more than five years;
(c) a student should have the right—
(i) not to be a member of the union, or
(ii) in the case of a representative body which is not an association, to signify that he does not wish to be represented by it,
and students who exercise that right should not be unfairly disadvantaged, with regard to the provision of services or otherwise, by reason of their having done so;
(d) appointment to major union offices should be by election in a secret ballot in which all members are entitled to vote;
(e) the governing body should satisfy themselves that the elections are fairly and properly conducted;
(f) a person should not hold sabbatical union office, or paid elected union office, for more than two years in total at the establishment;
(g) the financial affairs of the union should be properly conducted and appropriate arrangements should exist for the approval of the union’s budget, and the monitoring of its expenditure, by the governing body;
(h) financial reports of the union should be published annually or more frequently, and should be made available to the governing body and to all students, and each such report should contain, in particular—
(i) a list of the external organisations to which the union has made donations in the period to which the report relates, and
(ii) details of those donations;
(i) the procedure for allocating resources to groups or clubs should be fair and should be set down in writing and freely accessible to all students;
(j) if the union decides to affiliate to an external organisation, it should publish notice of its decision stating—
(i) the name of the organisation, and
(ii) details of any subscription or similar fee paid or proposed to be paid, and of any donation made or proposed to be made, to the organisation,
and any such notice should be made available to the governing body and to all students;
(k) where the union is affiliated to any external organisations, a report should be published annually or more frequently containing—
(i) a list of the external organisations to which the union is currently affiliated, and
(ii) details of subscriptions or similar fees paid, or donations made, to such organisations in the past year (or since the last report),
and such reports should be made available to the governing body and to all students;
(l) there should be procedures for the review of affiliations to external organisations under which—
(i) the current list of affiliations is submitted for approval by members annually or more frequently, and
(ii) at such intervals of not more than a year as the governing body may determine, a requisition may be made by such proportion of members (not exceeding 5 per cent.) as the governing body may determine, that the question of continued affiliation to any particular organisation be decided upon by a secret ballot in which all members are entitled to vote;
(m) there should be a complaints procedure available to all students or groups of students who—
(i) are dissatisfied in their dealings with the union, or
(ii) claim to be unfairly disadvantaged by reason of their having exercised the right referred to in paragraph (c)(i) or (ii) above,
which should include provision for an independent person appointed by the governing body to investigate and report on complaints;
(n) complaints should be dealt with promptly and fairly and where a complaint is upheld there should be an effective remedy.
(3) The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall for the purposes of this section prepare and issue, and when necessary revise, a code of practice as to the manner in which the requirements set out above are to be carried into effect in relation to any students’ union for students at the establishment, setting out in relation to each of the requirements details of the arrangements made to secure its observance.
(4) The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall as regards any students’ union for students at the establishment bring to the attention of all students, at least once a year—
(a) the code of practice currently in force under subsection (3),
(b) any restrictions imposed on the activities of the union by the law relating to charities, and
(c) where the establishment is one to which section 43 of the [1986 c. 61.] Education (No.2) Act 1986 applies (freedom of speech in universities and colleges), the provisions of that section, and of any code of practice issued under it, relevant to the activities or conduct of the union.
(5) The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall bring to the attention of all students, at least once a year, and shall include in any information which is generally made available to persons considering whether to become students at the establishment—
(a) information as to the right referred to in subsection (2)(c)(i) and (ii), and
(b) details of any arrangements it has made for services of a kind which a students’ union at the establishment provides for its members to be provided for students who are not members of the union.
(6) In subsections (2), (4) and (5) the expression “all students” shall be construed as follows—
(a) in relation to an association or body which is a students’ union by virtue of section 20(1), the reference is to all students at the establishment;
(b) in relation to an association or body which is a students’ union by virtue of section 20(2), the reference is to all undergraduate, or all graduate, students at the establishment or to all students at the hall of residence in question, as the case may be;
(c) in relation to an association or body which is a students’ union by virtue of section 20(3), the reference is to all the students who by virtue of section 20(1) or (2) are comprehended by that expression in relation to its constituent or affiliated associations or bodies.
(7) In this section the expression “members”, in relation to a representative body which is not an association, means those whom it is the purpose of the union to represent, excluding any student who has exercised the right referred to in subsection (2)(c)(ii).
(8) In subsection (2)(j) to (l) the references to affiliation to an external organisation, in relation to a students’ union for students at an establishment, include any form of membership of, or formal association with, an organisation whose purposes are not confined to purposes connected with that establishment.
(9) Subsection (2)(d) and (l)(ii) (elections and affiliations: requirements to hold secret ballot of all members) do not apply in the case of an open or distance learning establishment, that is, an establishment where the students, or the great majority of them, are provided with materials for private study and are not required to attend the establishment to any significant extent or at all.
Now, unlike BUGS, I can actually read and understand primary legislation and what is entirely and absolutely clear is that this section set out the regulations that apply to Student Unions in their operations BUT NOT to any clubs or societies which operate under the aegis of a Student Union.
This is of particular relevance here to BUGS assertion that all clubs and societies must be open to all students. This is not true in terms of this Act, which requires ONLY that the Student Union as a whole must be open to all students.
What is happening here is that BUGS are misinterpreting S22(6)(c) of the Act as applying to clubs and societies on the basis that it states:
(6) In subsections (2), (4) and (5) the expression “all students” shall be construed as follows—
(a) in relation to an association or body which is a students’ union by virtue of section 20(1), the reference is to all students at the establishment;
(b) in relation to an association or body which is a students’ union by virtue of section 20(2), the reference is to all undergraduate, or all graduate, students at the establishment or to all students at the hall of residence in question, as the case may be;
(c) in relation to an association or body which is a students’ union by virtue of section 20(3), the reference is to all the students who by virtue of section 20(1) or (2) are comprehended by that expression in relation to its constituent or affiliated associations or bodies.
However this refers back to the definition of a Student Union in s20 of the Act, and in particular to s20(1)-(3), this section reading as follows:
20.—(1) In this Part a “students’ union” means—
(a) an association of the generality of students at an establishment to which this Part applies whose principal purposes include promoting the general interests of its members as students; or
(b) a representative body (whether an association or not) whose principal purposes include representing the generality of students at an establishment to which this Part applies in academic, disciplinary or other matters relating to the government of the establishment.
(2) References in this Part to a students’ union include an association or body which would fall within subsection (1) if for the references to the generality of students at the establishment there were substituted a reference to—
(a) the generality of undergraduate students, or graduate students, at the establishment; or
(b) the generality of students at a particular hall of residence of the establishment.
(3) References in this Part to a students’ union include an association or body which consists wholly or mainly of—
(a) constituent or affiliated associations or bodies which are themselves students’ unions within subsection (1) or (2), or
(b) representatives of such constituent or affiliated associations, and which fulfils the functions of a students’ union within subsection (1) or (2) in relation to students at an establishment to which this Part applies.
To be absolutely clear here, in law a Student Union represents the Students of a University in general to promote their interest as students in academic, disciplinary or other matters relating to the government of the establishment; i.e. in their relationship with the University itself - s20(1).
An association which represents all students at a university OR all students at a particular hall of residence within a university is, in law, a Student Union - s20(2).
An association which is made up mainly or wholly of affiliated Student Unions is also, in law a Student Union. This, obviously, includes the NUS, but also SUs at universities where individual colleges or halls of residence have their own SUs.
Nothing in this definition of a Student Union would apply to an individual club or society that is affiliated to the Student Union as individual societies, such as Christian Union, an LGBT society or a roleplaying club are NOT Student Unions in their own right and do not fulfill the purpose and function of a Student Union.
In fact the only element of this Act which set a specific requirement in relation to clubs and societies is this:
the procedure for allocating resources to groups or clubs should be fair and should be set down in writing and freely accessible to all students;
I have, in reading various comments about this issue, seen ‘charity law’ cited as a possible issue here - as far as I can see, it is not an issue, at least not in terms of the reasons given by BUGS for its decision.
Charity law permits reasonable restrictions to be placed on eligibility for membership of a charity, in line with the objects of a charity.
It is, therefore, entirely permissible for an African-Caribbean community organisation to restrict its membership solely to those of African Caribbean descent. It is also permissible for a women’s organisation to restrict membership only to women, and LGBT organisation only to those who self-indentify as being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transsexual and it it is entirely permissible for a religious organisation to restrict membership only to those of a specific religion and such restrictions can include restrictions based on a specific doctrine. I know this for certain having registered several such charities - in the main Evangelical churches and congregations, over the last 6-7 years and on no occasion did any difficulties arise with the Charity Commission.
And yes, in taking these groups through charity registration, the issie of equal opportunities, particularly in relation to homesexuality did come up on numerous occasions and in some cases the church in question insisted that equal opportunities statements were ‘diluted’ to remove references to equality on grounds of sexuality and transgender because it did not fit with their doctrinal beliefs…
…and not once was this raised or challenged by the Charity Commission during registration.
BUGS other cited ‘problem’ with the Christian Union relates to its internal democratic processes, which were reported to the Guild committee as allowing the outgoing committee to nominate its replacements without recourse to election or nominations from the wider membership of the group.
As I now understand it, this is not an entirely accurate picture - it is true that the outgoing committee nominates its replacements but if my information is correct, all such nominations are subject to ratification by the membership, who have the right to vote against a particular nominee and exclude them from the committee.
In practical terms, therefore, this is little different from the kind of candidate selection practices used by political parties, in which potential candidates are vetted by the party heirarchy before going on to the panel of candidates (excuse me for using Labour terminolgy here, its what I know best). It is also close enough in approximation to the process used the US for appointments to the Supreme Court and to the position of UN ambassador, where nominations are made by the President but subject to democratic ratification by Congress. This may not meet the ideal of democracy in membership organisations, as some see it, but it is not - if this is indeed the Birmingham Christian Union’s practice - an undemocratic process.
On this basis it certainly does not appear that the Birmingham University Guild of Student’s stated reasons for derecognising the Christian Union and freezing its bank account stand up to scrutiny - to be a little less polite about it, they appear to be making a complete bunches of arses of themselves.
As for what happens next, the Christian Union have engaged the services of a lawyer to fight their case and, quite frankly, if, because Student Unions are governed by an enactment in the Education Act 1994, the lawyer can make the argument that BUGS is acting as public authority here, then the Christian Union has a fair chance of making a case stick under articles 11 and 14 of the Human Rights Act, which cover Freedom of Assocation and the right to enjoy right accorded under ECHR without discrimination.
If such a case were brought successfully, this would not only have ramifications for Birmingham’s SU but for every SU in the country and for the NUS as well, which is why it would seem to me to be a sensible move for the NUS to intervene and, at the very least, get a lawyer who understands all the relevant legislation to look over this case and advise them as to where BUGS stand and how this might splashback on other Student Unions. Someone needs to applying some common sense to this situation, and the NUS may be best placed to do it if they’ve a mind to.
Of course, there is another route through this, if Students at Birmigham University wish to take it. I dare say that BUGS is little different to most other SU inasmuch as the vast majority of students at the university really don’t give a toss about how its run as long as the bars open on time and couldn’t care less about Union politics, which is, broadly-speaking, why things like this happen as most SU end up being run by a minority of activists whose claim to actually represent the student body as a whole is, to say the least, somewhat questionable.
And that route?
Nothing more than a good old fashioned no-confidence motion, which, unless BUGS can come up with something more substantive to back up their actions, is only really what they deserve.
Oh, and in case anyone gets any dumb ideas about claiming bias on my part here, I should just point out that, as regular readers know well, I am an atheist and completely open in my dislike of religion. It’s just that I dislike this kind of discriminatory illiberal crap even more.
Prescott injured in ’sprint’ race
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has sprained his ankle while running with youngsters at an athletics track.
Mr Prescott, 67, told onlookers in Carlisle: “I’ve pulled a bloody muscle. I feel a right bloody twit.”
Aides put an ice-pack on his swollen ankle before he limped away to his official chauffeur-driven Jaguar.
As he was led away, Mr Prescott, a schoolboy boxer, said of his 10 and 11-year-old competitors: “I thought I was going to beat these beggars.”
I mean the words ‘Prescott’ and ’sprint’ in the same sentence…
