Concrete 315

Page 1

Asexuality Awareness Week >P11

Ultimate guide for student travellers >P20 20th October 2015 Issue 315

concrete-online.co.uk @Concrete_UEA ConcreteNewspaper

UEA hockey teams face investigation >> Men’s first and second teams to be investigated for alleged violations of union’s code of conduct Jessica Frank-Keyes News editor The UEA Men’s First and Second Hockey Teams have been suspended pending an investigation into an alledged violation of the Union of UEA Students’ (UUEAS) code of conduct. 28 players from both teams – around half of the UEA Men’s Hockey Club – have been temporarily suspended from participation in union sports clubs, including matches and training, following the alledged breach. An email, seen by Concrete, that was sent to the players last Thursday, says: “It has been alleged that on Wednesday 14th October, the first X1 and second X1 hockey were involved in activity that may have been in breach of the union’s code of conduct”. Concrete understands that the accusations relate to the following subsections of the code: “threatening or harassing any other person, whether physically or verbally; assaulting any other person; acting in contravention of the union’s equal opportunities policies; acting without due regard for the safety of others; infringement of equal opportunities, safe space, no platform or staff protocol policies; organising initiation ceremonies”. Any member of UUEAS is subject to it’s code of conduct “while... representing or acting on behalf of the union at any event of whatever kind and wherever held”.

Photo: Will Cockram, Concrete Photography Speaking off the record, a well-placed union source said that the allegations will not be made more specific to prevent the club from preparing a defense prior to the official investigation. The events in question occurred on the return journey to UEA after the first XI played

Oxford and second XI played Oxford Brookes on 14th October and quickly became the subject of intense and lurid speculation on social media. UUEAS released a statement about the allegations, stating that they are “supported by video evidence” and that the behaviour of the two teams “if proven, would

constitute a serious breach of the code of conduct. The two teams have been suspended pending an investigation, which will begin as soon as possible. It would be inappropriate to comment further whilst the investigation is ongoing”. The players involved have been informed by the union that due to “clause 16.1 of the code in cases involving gross misconduct” they are liable to “a period of suspension of membership rights... whilst an unhindered investigation is conducted”. The union has decided that “any member of the UEA Hockey Club that travelled to or from Oxford on October 14th has now had this right [to participate in union activities] suspended and no activity under the auspices of the club may take place until the suspension has been lifted”. Concrete understands that the offical union investigation will take place at some point this week. Richard Shapland, the President and Captain of the UEA Hockey Club, spoke exclusively to Concrete about the allegations. He claimed that he “can’t think of anything that went on that was that much too far for the union to see fit to suspend 28 players. It might be something to do with just one or two people, which, for them to suspend two full teams – forcing us to concede two matches – seems heavy-handed”. Asked about the extent of his knowledge Continued on page 5

Union council meeting labelled “shambolic” by councillors Dan Falvey Editor-in-Chief Union Council, the democratic decisionmaking body of the Union of UEA Students (UUEAS) has faced widespread criticism from councillors present at the its first meeting of the year. Last Thursday’s meeting was criticised by councillors who claimed to be “shocked” by council’s conduct, angry at the showcasing of “personality politics” and annoyed that the meeting was “unnecessarily long”. On 15th October, Union Council sat for the first time this academic year to vote on motions proposed by councillors. The meeting started at 19:00, , but did not finish until nearly four hours later. Council is well known for taking a long time to get through its agenda and regularly passes a guillotine motion in order to force the meeting to come to a close at a set time. This ensures that students are not still voting late into the

night. For this reason, Jonathan Gillespie, who was present at council representing Conservative Future, proposed that council immediately agree to finish at 22:00, limiting the length of council to three hours. However, Gillespie’s motion was narrowly rejected: 46% voted in favour of the cut-off, but 52% voted against. This was not the only attempt by councillors to impose a guillotine for the night. A further four guillotines were rejected by and, in the end, the meeting did not finish until 23.00. By this time over, 30 councillors had walked out. “The lack of a formal closing time at Union Council was the cause for last night’s shambolic meeting” claimed Gillespie. “Losing over a third of members is an absolute outrage”, he added. Gillespie was not alone in voicing his criticism. Aaron Hood, the union’s Disabled Students’ Officer, said that the meeting was “horrendously stressful for students with anxiety and it was an awful initiation for new councillors”.

Amy Rust, representing Politics Society, agreed. “I was sat with some new councillors who were shocked by how council conducted itself”. It wasn’t just new councillors who found the process uninviting. UEA:TV’s councillor, Rob Drury, said that “even as a third-term councillor” he found the process “unnecessarily long, complex and difficult to understand”. Gilbert MacNaughton, who was elected as chair unopposed at Thursday’s meeting, has responded to the criticisms: “I believe the anger over how long Thursday’s meeting [went on for] perfectly illustrates the fundamental clash between making council less intimidating and the desire that council remains a venue for ideas and policies to be freely and enthusiastically debated, a clash that led to a lot of anger on both sides”. He added: “Reconciling these positions is the only way that union council can function to the best of its abilities”. But Theo Antoniou-Phillips was more

positive in his summary. “I was really pleased with how council went. Lots of great motions were passsed which mandate the students’ union to do some great work”. One reason for the late finish of council was that the meeting did not formally start until 25 minutes after it was meant to. While many councillors believe the late start time is more evidence of council’s disorganisation, the move also indicates that the motions passed by council may not actually be legal. According to the union’s constitution: “In order for the meeting to make formal decisions there must be a quorum [the minimum number of councillors present for the meeting to be constitutional] within 15 minutes of the time stated on the agenda for the meeting to start”. Responding to the claims, a UUEAS spokesman argued: “The required number of attendees had arrived for the meeting by 22:10. This was formally recorded through a quorum count later, but the required quorum by the deadline was never in doubt”.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
Concrete 315 by Concrete - the official student newspaper of UEA. - Issuu