Assaults on UCD Students by SecurityGuards

by Fitzer - SF/ FEE Sun Dec 28, 2008 04:57

Lads, i was harrassed again by the security company on the last day of the exams. i swear we werent drinking on campus or causing trouble, one of the lads walked accross the grass at the egg and we followed like sheep when...

a group of friends and i, including Dan o neill, were shouted at by security (at about 11 oclock) demanding what we were doing and where we were going, there was about 4 security men, another 6 or seven shortly arrived. they soon stopped the very aggressive behavior when the saw Dan and myself who had been campaigning against the very same duty manager, they treated us "well" compared to what normal students usually get

Martin Buttler has already admitted that the security forces have been heavy handed with students- WHY ARE THEY STILL THERE!!??

im sorry lads but i wont be held responsible for my actions if these bastards harass me again - PULSE OUT!

by Fitzer - sf/ fee Sun Dec 28, 2008 04:42

Sorry for the rant there lads and the auld bad language, im not great at expressing myself electronically

some great stuff being thrown out there bond and georgie, i agree, there seems to be be an ivory tower view and concept of the union lads.
its up to us to change it, 20 grand on class rep training is a no go either, most of us would be happy with tents and a few cans.

more class reps and more people going to union council is a must, posters i suppose?? as well as encouraging our classes to go??
any ideas lads??

by Chris Thu Dec 18, 2008 00:00

''The empty res rep seats on council need to be filled, hopefully they will be in the new year''

Agreed.

''The SU should already be doing this but if they're not, there should be SU leaflets distributed on res to let them know what the situation is. The only info people have recieved is a vague outline from the college themselves.''

Dan and a few others distributed an SU leaflet on the last thursday of term.

''The campaign should link up with disabled students. The gates make it difficult for people in wheelchairs to gain access to their on-campus accommodation with those living in Glenomena having to embark on a 30 min trip to get in through the approved gate.''

You're spot on. Thats something we're working on and one of my colleagues who uses a wheelchair has confronted the head of Res on the issue.

''The campaign should also link the costs involved (and those of the zen garden) with the cutbacks in other areas of the college budget. The manner in which the decision was taken by the college authorites aslo needs to be highlighted as it proves that they have no respect for students and is representative their level of contempt.''

You're right more involvement of staff and students in decision making is absolutely essential if we are to prevent crazy proposals like gates in the future. There was a motion to SU council condenming the misues of college resources on these gates at a time when academic facilities are short of funding.

''All of this points to the relationship between the college authorites &UCDSU and highlights the limitations of committee merry-go-rounds. Student involvement from an early stage in issues like this then backs up the union in relation to negotiations. The SU left it until it was almost too late.''

I agree with everything in that paragraph. real representation doesnt begin and end with a seat on a commitee. We will only affect change by involving as many students as possible in campaigns, lobbying and direct action. It is very important for students to pre-empt action against bad decision before it is too late, because thats how we get results, last years campaign against the healthcharge is a testiment to that.

by george laserbeam Tue Dec 16, 2008 20:17

The empty res rep seats on council need to be filled, hopefully they will be in the new year. The SU should already be doing this but if they're not, there should be SU leaflets distributed on res to let them know what the situation is. The only info people have recieved is a vague outline from the college themselves.

A motion needs to go to council to organise and publicise res committee meetings. It's difficult to leaflet and organise on res due to the locked doors at the entrances to the buildings, so people living on res should be provided with union material to distribute in the buildings they have access to. At the meetings the idea of holding a protest (at governing authority, Bradys mansion, admin whatever the residents decide) should be brought up and pursued.

The campaign should link up with disabled students. The gates make it difficult for people in wheelchairs to gain access to their on-campus accommodation with those living in Glenomena having to embark on a 30 min trip to get in through the approved gate.

The campaign should also link the costs involved (and those of the zen garden) with the cutbacks in other areas of the college budget. The manner in which the decision was taken by the college authorites aslo needs to be highlighted as it proves that they have no respect for students and is representative their level of contempt.

All of this points to the relationship between the college authorites &UCDSU and highlights the limitations of committee merry-go-rounds. Student involvement from an early stage in issues like this then backs up the union in relation to negotiations. The SU left it until it was almost too late.

This has to be done this year. By waiting until September to introduce the security, the college authorities hope that hey won't face the same kind of protest that happened on ''black friday". It will be easier for them to implement the checkpoints at the start of a new college year rather than during the middle of this year.

by Fitzer - Sinn Fein/ FEE/ UCDSU Tue Dec 16, 2008 19:20

Where were you son when i chained all the gates open??? where were you me lad when i stayed at the gates ALL day on black friday??
where were you when we led the protest against the guards outside the bar??? where were you when we releived the gaurds of their duty??? etc. etc. this s*it could go on all day

stop bitchin about us on some stupid thread, who are you callin a hack??? f**k sabatical elections, i dont care when it comes to security, you forget all about elections and campaigns and all that s**t when u are ripped from the bar by pulse security for no reason.

you clearly have issues too about security, give us a much needed hand and dont mind the internal stupid union politics, Sabbat elections etc. - it seems when you think about running for sabbat- theres allways a few people who think every campaign etc. you get involved in is for personal gain and for the "back of the manifesto" f**k all that shit and screw the people who do that.

I HATE pulse security, i will try to bring them and the colleges policies down regardless of any stupid internal SU election.

you know who i am, give me a few ideas, lets beat these bastads instead of stupid inner fightin.

by George Tue Dec 16, 2008 19:02

I am not a member of the Socialist Party yet I find your immediate dive into sectarianism dissapointing. I was also involved in the campaigns of two of the people you mention.

The jump to organise a public meeting, after a decision was made to run in the elections is, in my opinion linked. I believe this to be a valid opinion. I also believe that a campaign based around a petition, the course of action you wanted the SU to follow, can be subject to criticism. This is not ''dogma".

The SU had already made the college authorities aware that they were unhappy, it doesn't require a petition, it requires people actually showing them the level of their opposition. The fact that council deferred a motion, for a petition and a meeting, was a criticism of council, not you. The SU waited until it was almost too late to get people involved in opposing the gates.

As a matter of fact what have YOU done for students?
I was at the gates, as was Fitzer and SU sabbats, preventing them from being used. An action which resulted in the them not being manned for the rest of this college year. If the checkpoints are not to be operated next year, it's going to take more than getting people to sign a sheet of paper.

If this is how you react to criticism over actions and tactics, good luck next year.

by Chris Tue Dec 16, 2008 18:08

Your post is clearly bile, and one of the biggest cases of nitpicking ive seen in a while. Myself and Fitzer argued AGAINST deferring the motion, and we weren't happy with the decision, why do you deliberately omit that fact. Again if a public meeting and a peitition followed by stand of with security is not the makings of a campaign with massive student participation i dont know what is. You obviously have a vendetta, spreading blatant and deliberate lies about people online because you'r'e too cowardly to say it to my face. You were the exact Same with Paul Dillon, Enda Duffy and Dan O'Neill. Yes it is possible to do good for students without being a dogmatic trot . As a matter of fact what have YOU done for students?

by Chris Bond Tue Dec 16, 2008 17:53

Your comments about me using this for political capital is unfounded. Last year i did not run for election yet i founded and put a lot of efforts into UCD students for free healthcare an organisation which was instrumental in preventing the college authorities from introducing a healthcharge. The inagural meeting was the best attended issue based meeting all year. The Socialist party didnt bother attending so they organised a badly attended meeting of their own. But the one difference between the student meeting and the trot meeting was that the student meeting was set up to defeat the charge, the Socialist Party meeting was set up to exploit the issue as a recruitment opportunity for the Socaialist Party;

by Chris Bond Tue Dec 16, 2008 17:27

Wow

You seem to know me, (at least think you do), why dont you just tell me who you are or at least have the courage to approach me in person before you start to make unfounded allegations.

by george laserbeam Tue Dec 16, 2008 16:00

The meeting on the security gates was called by yourself ,and another indiviual, following a decision by both of you to run in the UCDSU sabbatical elections. You have to offer up students proof of some level of activity if you're running for president.

The public meeting followed a motion, submitted by yourself, to UCDSU called on the SU have a petition and to organise a meeting with security.

A few week ago students, with the aid of certian SU officers, prevented the gates from being used by using locks & physically preventing them from being put up. As a result of this action, which you were not involved with, the college administration has made the decision not to implement the security check-points until September of next year. This is only a partial victory, but it's a good start.

This will now be cynically be presented on your manifesto as a successful campaign which you spearheaded. The reality is different. If the campaign simply followed the trajectory you called for, a petition and a meeting between the SU president and the security company, the gates would currently be in operation.

This is indicative of your approach and it's limitations.

Even with the modest 'demands', the motion was deferred for a fortnight as the SU sought "the full story of the new security policy". It was during this two week period that the college sought to erect and implement the use of these security checkpoints.The college admin has shown that it has no respect for students. A campaign based on a petition is a far cry from going around res, discussing these issues at res committees and holding some form of protest , yet none of this or any other real action to get students involved was contained within the motion.

Photos of the action on the gates to follow.

by Chris Bond Tue Dec 16, 2008 14:30

There was no ''facade of a campaign'' it was a proper one, a meeting was organised, it went well. There was a standoff with security two weeks ago in which a group of students including an SU officer peacefully forced security to open the gates, not to mention the fact that hundreds of signatures were collected. If thats not a campaign then i dont know what is.

by Chris Bond - UCD Students union Class rep Tue Dec 16, 2008 14:24

Hi Michael

There was a meeting organised on the issue of security about 3 weeks ago. It was probably the best attended issue based meeting on campus this year with the exception of the anti fees meetings.

by Paul K Tue Dec 16, 2008 13:08

The "DG" of the IBA, Jim Shortt (or "Colonel Baron James Shortt" as he prefers to be known) is a charlatan of the highest order - see link.

Among many other things he claims to be a former member of the British Army Paras and SAS; the truth is that he specialises in dressing up shaven headed simians tired of their true vocation as nightclub bouncers as commandos complete with airsoft machine guns at "training courses" at Castlebellingham Hotel and giving them notions about themselves, in much the same way that the UDA used to dress themselves up as soldiers to bolster their self-image. These thugs are then let loose on an Irish university campus.

by Michael Gallagher - Photojournalist Sun Dec 14, 2008 14:59

...they are stealthily preparing for the showdowns...any meetings being organised?

by George Lazenby Sat Dec 13, 2008 20:15

The aim is to make UCD as sterile an environment as possible for students. Another shopping centre were you can pay for your degree as well as your apache pizza and starbucks. Modularisation has already sucked the life out of the limited social activity that used to exist in Belfield. The planned introduction of security check-points next September is also worrying.

Whats more disappointing is the lack of official SU action on the issue. Inevitably though, some instituitonalised hack will use the security issue to earn a bit of political capital for themselves in time for next years elections. The facade that a campaign was organised will be neatly placed on the back of the manifesto with the usual token bit of Irish.

Better start the PR campaign now, perhaps with a story containing no new news and made-up unattributed quotes..oh wait.

by Conor. M - Think Tank, Swords Sat Dec 13, 2008 18:22 liberalconormurphy at ymail dot com

I've also heard of something familiar of the security in Trinity (excuse the ignorance if I am wrong). I have this strange view of campus security.
You would imagine the security would be there to protect the buildings as well as the students but, this ever-growing paranoid and secure Europe is really becoming obvious. Maybe something drastic is needed! It's seems the SUI (student union of Ireland) is really becoming complacent. I know some work hard but, damn, they really need to get the finger out.
Sorry if I offended any SUI members.
Conor