Sussex students occupy library - again!
Dec 7 2006 16:44
#122
oisleep wrote:
so fuck! they went to the effort of sending out an email, and then surprised nobody came running to them, what's wrong with having a chat to them, if they want the library to be open for longer i assume there in there a lot so why not take the opportunity for some face to face stuff
They didn't say they were surprised, they've admitted an error which they've said they'll rectify.
Quote:
and grand so ed doesn't live in a bubble so that means naebody can criticse the actions of the 80 odd people who were involved?
No of course not, I commented on it critically too from my pov as ex-uni library worker. But to me it looks like you're not being comradely and more trying to stick the boot in rather than offer constructive criticism. If the former I would think that you would have stopped having a go after the campaign people on here said they'd made a mistake and would do their best to resolve it - which is about the best result you could expect, no?
Dec 7 2006 16:48
#123
well i'll be honest in that i'm suprised Ed has time for such toytown student politics and i also think he's being a tad rich in wanting this campaign and action to be treated with kid gloves whilst he absolutely shredded those peeps going to the Anti G8 stuff in Sterling (which was fair enough).
Anyway i'm glad ed's calmed down abit but i was honestly mostly joking in my initial posts, I mean for fucksake my anti swot remark was coached in the same language as homophobes.
Dec 7 2006 16:55
#124
John. wrote:
oisleep wrote:
so fuck! they went to the effort of sending out an email, and then surprised nobody came running to them, what's wrong with having a chat to them, if they want the library to be open for longer i assume there in there a lot so why not take the opportunity for some face to face stuffThey didn't say they were surprised, they've admitted an error which they've said they'll rectify.
Quote:
and grand so ed doesn't live in a bubble so that means naebody can criticse the actions of the 80 odd people who were involved?No of course not, I commented on it critically too from my pov as ex-uni library worker. But to me it looks like you're not being comradely and more trying to stick the boot in rather than offer constructive criticism. If the former I would think that you would have stopped having a go after the campaign people on here said they'd made a mistake and would do their best to resolve it - which is about the best result you could expect, no?
get a grip, i made a couple of comments on it only, then agreed with you that the point had been laboured enough so should be left
Dec 7 2006 16:57
#125
revol68 wrote:
the fact they got no response might imply that an occupation wasn't going to be met with great sympathy or interest, no?
could mean any number of things, depends what was actually said on the mail i suppose
Dec 7 2006 17:07
#126
oisleep wrote:
revol68 wrote:
the fact they got no response might imply that an occupation wasn't going to be met with great sympathy or interest, no?could mean any number of things, depends what was actually said on the mail i suppose
Yeah well I suppouse it could say,
If you are totally in favour of this and think we are better than the A team then don't reply.
But seriously you can't just send out an email, get no response either way and go ahead with it, especially if one of the issues you are hoping to raise is staff cutbacks.
I mean if that was the case why don't we just start sending emails about factory occupations, get no response and march in and occupy the factory for the workers themselves?
Dec 7 2006 17:11
#127
you've mistaken my point on it, i completely agree with you
i was more coming from the point of view that if things like demands for 24 hour opening had been on the email, they may have received more response, albeit in the negative
Dec 7 2006 17:14
#128
but then again i'm assuming it wasn't, which may not be the case
Dec 7 2006 19:58
#129
oisleep wrote:
and grand so ed doesn't live in a bubble so that means naebody can criticse the actions of the 80 odd people who were involved?
Where did anybody say that? You're being really fucking aggressive and, as far as I can see, deliberately quoting people out of context.
Nobody's objecting to criticisms being made, it's a matter of the tone some people are taking.
Dec 7 2006 23:26
#130
quick to jump on any cunt who does though, kid gloves style
tone? get a grip ffs, any slight against a stude that's not portrayed in your pseudo intellect shite is written off as aggressive
anyway, shouldn't you be off lecturing & finger poking striking workers for not letting you coattail on their issues, and writing them off as reactionary because they don't want to turn a strike over wages & conditions into some issue that's fuck all to do with it, but you've (students & annarkisseds) decided it should be number one concern
Dec 8 2006 00:48
#131
oisleep wrote:
quick to jump on any cunt who does though, kid gloves style
Yep, that's why everybody was telling Catch, John, battlescarred and numerous others to shut the fuck up for raising similar points, right?
Quote:
anyway, shouldn't you be off lecturing & finger poking striking workers for not letting you coattail on their issues, and writing them off as reactionary because they don't want to turn a strike over wages & conditions into some issue that's fuck all to do with it, but you've (students & annarkisseds) decided it should be number one concern
I genuinely don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about or what you're on, but I suggest you go to bed 
Dec 8 2006 06:49
#132
ah ok, so it must have been a comrade of yours then from liverpool af/defy id who wrote that finger wagging letter to freedom a couple of weeks ago
you should have a word
Quote:
Yep, that's why everybody was telling Catch, John, battlescarred and numerous others to shut the fuck up for raising similar points, right?
raising similar points in kid gloves style
anyway, i said the last thing i was going to say on the matter 2pages ago, no my problem you and others jumped on it (ignoring the fact i said i thought the point had been laboured enough) and dragged it out
Dec 8 2006 10:21
#133
Anyone know if the staff actually received the email? Also if you sent something to a staff list at my work I wouldn't respond to it because someone could tell management about the mail (if they're not on the list in the first place) and then they could check who had responded. The best you are going to ghet from staff is tacit support or off the record stuff, using email is not off the record.
Dec 8 2006 10:23
#134
madashell doesn't work in a university. None of Liverpool AF do at the moment, although I'm trying to get back in, so I don't see what the hell you're getting at with this 'students & annarkisseds' bollocks.
Quote:
ah ok, so it must have been a comrade of yours then from liverpool af/defy id who wrote that finger wagging letter to freedom a couple of weeks ago
Just dug up the letter and he was slagging off the *union* for doing what unions do - dividing workers against each other. What are we supposed to take everything PCS say as gospel now in order to avoid 'coat-tailing'? As the letter says, ID cards are likely to be used to undermine the union in the same way that the expansion and privatisation of CRB checks was. Why shouldn't we slag off some numpty for saying 'ID cards mean a lot of work for our members' when 1) it's not true and 2) even if it was it's still an attack on the broader working class?
Dec 8 2006 10:45
#135
ticking_fool wrote:
madashell doesn't work in a university. None of Liverpool AF do at the moment, although I'm trying to get back in, so I don't see what the hell you're getting at with this 'students & annarkisseds' bollocks.
This is derailing, can we just move on? As has been said, this side of things has been done enough.
Dec 8 2006 11:12
#136
ticking_fool wrote:
madashell doesn't work in a university. None of Liverpool AF do at the moment, although I'm trying to get back in, so I don't see what the hell you're getting at with this 'students & annarkisseds' bollocks.Quote:
ah ok, so it must have been a comrade of yours then from liverpool af/defy id who wrote that finger wagging letter to freedom a couple of weeks agoJust dug up the letter and he was slagging off the *union* for doing what unions do - dividing workers against each other. What are we supposed to take everything PCS say as gospel now in order to avoid 'coat-tailing'? As the letter says, ID cards are likely to be used to undermine the union in the same way that the expansion and privatisation of CRB checks was. Why shouldn't we slag off some numpty for saying 'ID cards mean a lot of work for our members' when 1) it's not true and 2) even if it was it's still an attack on the broader working class?
look you all piled down there when they were out on strike, and tried to foist some anti id stuff onto them and when they told you to fuck off you got the hump and started finger wagging
i'm not criticising your stance on ID cards, but to go and try and impose this on others who are in the middle of a completely separate action is pretty pompous behaviour imo
sorry john, will button it now
Dec 8 2006 11:12
#137
Quote:
This is derailing, can we just move on? As has been said, this side of things has been done enough.
Fair enough.
Dec 8 2006 11:29
#138
Edit: oh fuck it.
the fact they got no response might imply that an occupation wasn't going to be met with great sympathy or interest, no?