Last week, NUS Wales held a series of Liberation conferences covering Welsh language, black and minority ethnic students, students with disabilities, LGBT students, and women students, over five days, hosted at the Unite HQ in Cardiff.

This year, policy was passed requiring Aberystwyth Guild of Students to elect delegates to these conferences, however the timings necessitated open registration instead, due to rules preventing elections over the Easter period. As a result of this policy, Aber sent delegations to the majority of these conferences for the first time in a while. 4 delegates were sent to LGBT Conference – myself, Joe MacMahon, Rob Davies, and Lorraine Bainbridge.

Policy

NUS Wales LGBT is an autonomous campaign aiming to represent and campaign on behalf of GSM students across Wales, with conference being the sovereign decision making body, where policy is submitted by Student Unions. 10 motions were submitted this year on a range of issues, including campaigning for gender-neutral toilets, ending discrimination in blood and bone marrow donation, and working with women’s campaign on cervical screening. Members of Aber Pride had submitted a motion to conference on the provision of bilingual materials, however unfortunately this was ruled out of order as it had not been ratified by General Meeting here prior to submission. Attempts were made both here,and by NUS Wales LGBT Campaign to get the motion heard, however rules prevented it from being put forward. All valid motions submitted to conference passed.

Policy is held for a 3 year term, and so as a result, policy from 2009 was up for lapsing. However, lapsing policy can be challenged and renewed, and at this conference almost every lapsing policy was debated, of which many were renewed. I spoke on keeping the no platform for BNP and fascists policy, which was then voted to retain. Joe MacMahon spoke on a lapsing policy on bisexuality, which caused heated debate over the use of terminology which many considered to be exclusive and outdated. All Aberystwyth delegates contributed to debates on motions.

Workshops

Between plenary sessions, workshops were held on networking across Wales, and on implementing policy. Myself and Joe attended the latter whilst Rob and Lorraine were at the former. The policy workshop discussed the process of how to fight and win on policy, using gender neutral toilets as an example. Chaired by Vicki Baars, outgoing NUS LGBT Officer (Women’s Place) and NUS Vice-President-Elect Union Development, the session went over starting with the policy idea, why you want the policy, who you need to work with to get it in, e.g. student councils, Equality & Diversity staff, etc. and encouraging the use of SMART criteria in your planning.

Elections

At conference, several positions were up for election, including NUS Wales LGBT Officer, which is a part-time role that heads the campaign, Steering Officer, which co-ordinates and runs Conference, and Wales LGBT Committee, who act as the interim policy making body and work to implement the policies and campaigns of the organisation alongside the LGBT Officer. All elections are by STV, with RON as a candidate. Due to a policy which was ratified at conference, the committee structure changed to that of one Open Place position, one Bi Welfare and Campaigns position, one Womens caucus and elections position,  one Trans caucus and elections position, and one FE caucus and elections position. All positions had at least one candidate this year, and accordingly there is now a full committee.

Ian Morgan, the current NUS Wales LGBT Officer was re-elected unopposed, with 3 delegates voting for RON.

The committee members for 2012-13 will be Jack Oakley, Cardiff University (Open place); Lorraine Bainbridge, Aberystwyth University (Women’s caucus and elections); Rei Griffiths, University of Glamorgan (Trans caucus and elections); Katherine Leahy, Coleg Gwent (FE caucus and elections); and Sarah Lynn, Cardiff University (Bi welfare and campaigns). I ran for Bi Welfare and Campaigns, on a platform of union development to build support networks in mid and north Wales, but lost 8-16 to Sarah Lynn, who emphasised bi-erasure.

Kate Boddington, of Cardiff University was elected as Steering Officer, beating out Rob Davies for the position.

You can read the NUS reports from the other conferences at NUS Connect, where you’ll also see that delegates from Aberystwyth have been elected to the Welsh Language and Womens Campaigns.

Last week, NUS Wales held a series of Liberation conferences covering Welsh language, black and minority ethnic students, students with disabilities, LGBT students, and women students, over five days, hosted...

Aberystwyth Town Council website ( http://www.aberystwyth.gov.uk)

Last Thursday I sent off a Freedom of Information request to Aberystwyth Town Council asking for a breakdown of website expenditure as follows:

a) the total amount paid in remuneration to Vision ICT Ltd for works done on the Aberystwyth Town Council website ( http://www.aberystwyth.gov.uk )
b) the total spending on maintenance, server costs, staffing, etc. for the website for the financial year 2010/2011.
c) the total spending on maintenance, server costs, staffing, etc. for the website for the financial year 2011/2012.

Earlier today, in what must be the fastest positive response to a request under the Act ever, the Council has revealed that for the financial year 2010-2011 was £1199.68, broken down as follows:

The Council also explained that the “interactive website as per specification” included the design of both the English and Welsh websites, and the hosting and maintenance costs for the year for both websites.

Relatively cheap compared to some council websites, but is it worth what they paid for it? I’ve raised similar issues before when I revealed the cost of the UK Government’s e-petition website last year. Again it’s not really a clear-cut answer.

Last Thursday I sent off a Freedom of Information request to Aberystwyth Town Council asking for a breakdown of website expenditure as follows: a) the total amount paid in remuneration...

A phone call to a loved one. An e-mail to a prospective employer. A confidential message to a support service. Under new Government proposals, every single communication you make will be monitored and stored. Every time you phone someone, a record will be made of who, when, and where. Every time you access a website, it’ll be recorded. Your entire private life on display to the government, your friendships, your beliefs, your troubles, and your lifestyle. Everything.

Rank Hypocrisy

Despite opposing similar plans whilst in opposition, the Coalition Government are bringing forward plans to legislate a requirement for ISPs and telecoms providers to monitor and store information on every communication you make, providing the government “real-time” access to your data without warrant. The policy also flies in the face of Tory and Lib Dem election promises, and the coalition agreement:

We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness. We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion… We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation… We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason… – Section 3 “Civil Liberties”, Coalition Programme for Government

Technological Ignorance

Every week over 3.5 billion pieces of content are shared on Facebook. Every day, over 290 billion emails are sent. Every hour over 1.3 million tweets go out on twitter. As the 8th most connected country in the world, interactions from UK citizens will represent a great deal of that content. With so much data being generated every second, storage costs alone would be astronomical. Then imagine that ISPs will be required to keep all that spam, too. Implementing this law would require widespread reworking of network infrastructure, and investment in provision and upkeep of servers that would make Google’s server costs look like nothing.

The Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) has already hit out at the government over this. But given the Government’s inability and unwillingness to listen in the Digital Economy Act debate, one would hardly be surprised if their concerns are brushed aside yet again.

War on right to privacy

If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide. Only criminals, paedophiles and terrorists should be afraid. That’s the line from Home Secretary, Theresa May, anyway. The Government’s spouting of the fallacy-filled trope is utterly wrong – turning every civilian into a suspect, with everywhere you go, and every connection you make up for government tracking, is nothing short of declaring war on privacy.

Civil Liberties groups have lined up to condemn the move, with Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group stating “The saga of complicity between senior police officers and Murdoch’s journalists should tell us how vulnerable people’s privacy can be. The government should stand by the commitments both parties made before the election to protect our privacy.”, whilst Big Brother Watch have said “It is remarkable that they wish to pry into everything we do online but seem intent on avoiding any public discussion.”

Fighting the proposals

Unfortunately the public don’t seem to like getting up in arms or taking direct action on issues devolved from what they see as “real life”, so your options here are a bit limited to liberal things like writing to your MP or signing a petition, which the Government will happily allow because it makes no impact as they ignore everything said, whilst liberals pat themselves on the back for trying. “At least we didn’t take direct action”, they’ll proudly cry, as this legislation passes.

A phone call to a loved one. An e-mail to a prospective employer. A confidential message to a support service. Under new Government proposals, every single communication you make will...

On Monday evening I was approached by a student, who informed me that their friend had expressed to them their concerns over what happened at Womens’ Superteams Aftermath, a Union event, this weekend. The person in question was present at the event, and said she left in disgust, after taking photos as evidence of the event.

I proceeded to work with the individuals to prepare a fully factual statement outlining the allegations and providing the photos given to me. The article was presented to The Courier, the student paper, for publication on their website. The article had an embargo placed upon it to give Ben Meakin a chance to response to the allegations. The Courier rejected publishing the story as election regulations prevent articles naming candidates, and Ben did not respond for comment. At some point after 11pm, an individual I had not spoken to published the article to facebook. At this point, several people shared the article on facebook, including myself, and not much else happened until the morning.

On Tuesday morning, I was contacted by a member of AUGS Elections Committee, who told me to delete the link to the article, and that if anyone else published the article, it would be held as an election offence against me. I complied immediately with this request, despite protesting that the article was unrelated to the elections. At this time, I entered a complaint to Elections Committee regarding a statement from Ben Meakin posted to facebook, which indirectly attacked me and referenced the University’s development of a “mega dairy”.  No action was taken by elections committee, and the statement in question is still visible.

As the day progressed, more people began to comment on the article, and the statements made by Ben. The majority of this discussion took place on Ben’s facebook wall, as I and all my friends had complied with the request to remove the article. I now regret accepting the ruling of Elections Committee as it meant that almost all discussion of the accusations were limited to Ben Meakin’s wall, allowing for a grossly distorted perception to arise. I believe had I acted differently at this point, and not complied with the requests to delete all reference to the allegations, I would not be facing the harassment and threats that I have been receiving since the news broke.

Naturally, as discussion grew, the NUS became involved, and several officers called for the NUS Wales Women’s Officer to denounce Ben Meakin’s support, and to issue a statement on the alleged behaviour. Stephanie Lloyd, the NUSW Women’s Officer, complied and did just that, whilst NUSW President Luke Young contacted Ben Meakin and asked him to resign from WNEC. Later that day, Ben published a statement of “regret” for actions, and announced his resignation from WNEC.

At this point, comments intensified, with several people accusing me of “ruining” Ben’s life and career, of trying to “drag his name through the mud”. I can categorically state that I published a relatively neutral article highlighting accusations made against the President of a Students Union, and my intention was nothing more than to make it clear that this allegations had been made. I was later criticised by other Officers for “singling out” Ben in the article. My response to this was that I was not informed other officers were present, I had no evidence to suggest other officers were present, and that had I been informed and had evidence to show other Officers being involved, I would have published this too.

Yesterday afternoon, I was in a meeting in the Union, discussing an upcoming referendum, when an individual entered the room, asked if I was the one who wrote the article, and began accusing me of lying and making other such remarks. After the conclusion of the meeting, I went to lectures, where I learned I had now been accused of “running” from Ben and failing to talk to those involved who were “willing”. As a result, I stated I would meet Ben on Tuesday evening, and I did so after lectures concluded. Entering Ben’s office, I began discussing with him everything that had happened, however with him were several other officers and individuals, many of which spoke against me. After several minutes of this, the Education Officer raised the point that it was entirely unfair to have this many people speaking against me whilst I was alone. One person left, and shortly thereafter the Education Officer asked to speak to Ben alone. Everyone walked outside the office, and several people began to speak in a manner suggesting they would defend Ben’s actions. Feeling surrounded, I felt compelled to leave, and I went to a safe place, where I waited for over an hour before a friend could escort me home.

For the past 30 hours, I have seen increasingly aggressive remarks towards me, many making reference to “tracking me down”, and one today saying “Think we shpuld definatly [sic] start looking to trip Andrew Tindall up with anything we find after what he has done to ben meakin”, later going on to suggest physically attacking me on a night out. Additionally, looking at stats for this website reveals an increased number of people searching for my personal details, including my address. Others have searched for terms such as “Andrew Tindall scum”.

The harassment, abuse, and threats I have received as a result of raising the issue of institutionalised sexism and allegations against a full time officer mean I have been left feeling unsafe in the student union, and across campus as a whole, to the point I have now missed lectures to avoid the risk of being harassed whilst walking around campus alone. As a result of a fear for my own safety, and feeling that my Union does not represent me, or the welfare of its students, and that institutionalised objectification of women is tolerated, I wrote to the Guild President to withdraw my membership of Aberystwyth Guild of Students, thereby removing myself from the election campaign, removing any notion that the Guild represents my views, and removing permission for me to enter the unsafe space that is that Union. I have also submitted a complaint regarding the allegations, as well as complaints dealing with those who have made threats and personal attacks against me.

I will make no further statement on this matter unless the situation changes.

On Monday evening I was approached by a student, who informed me that their friend had expressed to them their concerns over what happened at Womens’ Superteams Aftermath, a Union...

Tonight, at a meeting of the Guild’s Executive Officers (minutes available here ), Officers have voted in favour of holding a referendum over changing from the General Meeting policy making body to a proposed Assembly. Ben Meakin, Jess Leigh, Tammy Hawkins, Alun Minifey, Dan Meehan, Dorothee Beuttner, Ioan Evans voted in favour of holding a referendum, Laura Dickens voted against; no abstentions were raised, and no other voting officers were present.

This discussion arose after a motion to call a referendum at GM on Tuesday was ended when the meeting fell below quoracy. As a result of the decision, an announcement shall be made on Friday calling for 2 delegates for a Yes Campaign, and 2 delegates for a No Campaign. The referendum shall be held alongside Guild elections, via online ballot, on the 7th and 8th March 2012.

It should be noted that prior to the GM dissolving, an amendment was passed that would have made the referendum in October. In agreeing to hold the referendum in March, the Executive have gone against the will of what was, at the time of said amendment, a majority of students in a then-quorate meeting

Tonight, at a meeting of the Guild’s Executive Officers (minutes available here ), Officers have voted in favour of holding a referendum over changing from the General Meeting policy making...