I’ve been getting more and more worried about the Oxford Green Party. Today I was horrified to see the contents of a letter from all of Oxford’s Green councillors.
One paragraph reads: “We are proud to stand alongside those Oxford students and pupils who marched peacefully two weeks ago on the NUS/UCU demo in London, and who this week marched for their rights, and then undertook the occupation in Oxford.”
I am indeed proud to stand alongside those who marched peacefully, and I am indeed ashamed of and entirely opposed to what my party’s senior MPs are doing with student funding in the coalition, but I am much more ashamed of all those who think it’s OK to practically vandalise one of Oxford’s most historic buildings, the Radcliffe Camera, and to seriously disrupt those students who are trying to work extremely hard to get their degrees. Did you see the dancing on the tables? I have never seen such blatant disrespect of such an important and historical resource. It’s sheer hypocrisy to protest about student fees and at the same time disrupt the work and lives of many students who just want to get on with studying so they can get their degrees. As you can see from the comments on the YouTube video linked above I appear not to be alone in that view.
It’s nothing short of scandalous that Oxford Greens seem to be supporting this sort of behaviour.
You say “practically vandalise”. Do you have any evidence at all that any damage was caused by the occupiers?
And do you know that the students occupying the building allowed access for staff and were happy to allow students in to use the facilities but were prevented by the university management.
People engaged in the occupations and marches and rallys across the country are trying to defend education. None of us want to disrupt other students or prevent them studying. If you actually investigated what was happening at these protests you’d see that.
If people don’t want to disrupt students then they probably shouldn’t stop them from working in libraries.
I am fully opposed to the cuts and as keen to defend education as anyone else.
Preventing people from studying in libraries is not defending education.
But as I said, they didn’t stop anyone working in the library. The university management wouldn’t let students in, the occupiers were happy to allow people to work.
I take it from your lack of response to my first point, that you don’t have any evidence of vandalism then? Will you correct that?
Have you tried to work in a library with loud dance music playing and people dancing on the tables? Doesn’t really work I’m afraid.
I stand by the view that occupying a library, and climbing all over the furniture is practically vandalism – which is exactly what I said.
But the students spent as I told you before only around 10 minutes of the 30 hours of occupation dancing.
So the “Practically Vandalism” in your eyes where there is no actual evidence of property damage is worse than the destruction of peoples lives which is a consequence of the policies signed up to by the MPs in your party.
That simply looks like an attempt to smear the protestors. Either they caused damage or they didn’t. If they didn’t, and you seem to have no evidence they did, why even bring up the idea of vandalism? except to link the ideas of occupation and damage to the building in your readers’ minds.
In terms of the loud dance music, firstly, how do you know how loud it was? But more importantly, there weren’t students trying to work there at that time. If there had been I am sure the students participating in the occupation would have acted differently; I know we had music playing at Edinburgh, but not while people were using the areas of the building we were in to work.
Both the UCU and NUS, along with thousands of staff and students who were not directly involved, have now come out in support of the occupations. Why are you going to such lengths to cast aspertions about them and the Green Party in Oxford if you genuinely want to support education and disagree with your party’s parliamentary leadership?
Stop wriggling Alasdair. You’ve made your views clear. I’m not talking about the Edinburgh occupation, just what happened in Oxford and how appalled I am that it disrupted people who were trying to work. Do you really think the library staff had any choice but to close the library when people were engaging in occupation and such shameful behaviour? I don’t. University staff have a legal duty to protect the safety of those using its facilities.
UCU has never balloted me about my position on the occupations so I don’t feel the need to agree with the views of its spokespeople. UCU has balloted me about strikes before and following that I have taken part in strike action and picketing at the cost of deductions to my salary. All legally. And Democratically.
There is nothing democratic about vandalism, or stopping people from using libraries by making them unsafe.
Of course there’s nothing democratic about vandalism, but no vandalism occurred.
And how was anyone put at risk? What was unsafe about the occupation?
With regards UCU, are you saying no decision made by anything less than a ballot of all members has legitimacy? This wasn’t a unilateral decision by Sally Hunt, there was a sector conference and a motion in support was passed without objection.
Why can’t you admit that you, at least, oversold what happened by bringing up the idea of vandalism and that, whether you agree personally or not with the tactic, it’s hardly scandalous for a local rival party to support action supported by the national representatives of both the staff and the students?
I wasn’t selling anything. This is politics and that’s how it works. For another example see my previous post in this blog about Temple Cowley Pools.
I did not say the UCU decision was illegitimate, just that because there was no ballot I am not compelled to support it.
Beyond the irony right now of being lectured by election promise breaking Lib Dems on democratic behaviour, my previous comment was taken down by a ‘liberal’. Well I might not like you taking my comment down but I’ll fight to the death for your right to take my comment down.
[…] Tony Brett, if you’re reading this – having read your superbly argued and not at all pompous article on […]
“I wasn’t selling anything. This is politics and that’s how it works.”
By that you mean lying and distorting the truth to gain power and advantage? How very Lib Dem.
This is perhaps belated, but I think you should reflect on this discussion, Mr Brett. Read carefully what was said.
You accused Alasdair of “wriggling”; from where I am sitting, it is you who is “wriggling” by repeatedly refusing to give direct answers to his points.
By failing to address his assertion that your comparison of occupation to vandalism is a smear on your part, you lend it strength.
The sad thing is that your statement “I wasn’t selling anything. This is politics and that’s how it works” is all too true. Misrepresentation of others and avoidance of direct engagement with constituents does seem to be how it works. Dismissal of those outside the system with comments like these seems to be the norm.
I’m sure I too will receive one of your dismissals. I’m clearly a silly child who doesn’t know the first thing about politics. Or I must have an axe to grind in favour of student protestors. I look forward to your response.
(Full disclosure: I am a student at the University of Oxford; I voted Lib Dem in the general election; I support top up fees but oppose politicians reneging on pledges)
Interesting. The comment I left yesterday has been deleted. I suppose that’s one way to deal with critics.
No comments were deleted I’m just a bit slow at approving them sometimes – sorry about that. I have moderation on in order to avoid the risk of defamation accusations if someone posts something defamatory about someone else. I am quite capable of dealing with comments about me!
For the millionth time – I am as against the tuition fees proposals as everyone who has posted here. I have not reneged on any election promises and I am very sorry and ashamed that Clegg and co. appear to be about to do so.
I am one of many LibDems in local government office who has expressed this view loud and clear within the party and will continue to do so.
What else would people like me to do? I have briefly considered leaving the party but all that would achieve is effectively terminating any representation I can offer for students to Oxford City Council of which I am a member. I stood as a LibDem in 2010 and was elected by nearly people who I believe expected me to represent them as a LibDem for four years. I don’t intend to renege on that promise even if my party’s MPs have reneged on theirs. I certainly won’t be joining any other parties as if people in Carfax ward had wanted a councillor from another party they could have voted for one.
Fair?
Oops – just noticed a missing word:
“elected by nearly people” should read “elected by nearly 1000 people”
I think the damage that the funding reforms will cause to the state of British education will be far worse than people dancing on tables in a library for one day. And ultimately, what good did peaceful protest do?
I don’t give a monkeys about about table dancing. I fully support the direct action, especially when held in such symbols of educational elitism as an Oxford Uni library. RE disruption: I hope a future Cameron/Osborne flunks his exams.