tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post3919741394673875441..comments2023-10-17T14:33:32.284+01:00Comments on Cambridge Gaza Solidarity Campaign: Statement on the behaviour of the university authoritiesCAMBRIDGE GAZA SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14141358952600867192noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-6067320504719200992009-12-24T04:40:19.486+00:002009-12-24T04:40:19.486+00:00It is mature to consider the use of strong and wre...It is mature to consider the use of strong and wrenching action if you feel that your cause is just. The world is deaf to complaints and keeps on churning along on the behalf of the rich and the politically connected. Not to put to fine a point on it: put up or shut up.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02510444361888243505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-48318337144925829902009-01-29T18:58:00.000+00:002009-01-29T18:58:00.000+00:00Capitán Askateth Harper, don't you think that Infi...Capitán Askateth Harper, don't you think that Infinity's willingness to believe it but attribute it to actors outwith DA GROUP's control, but who'd entered as part of the protest, suggests at least some of DA GROUP wouldn't care if someone were physically assaulted?<BR/><BR/>P.S. Love the way you call Edward up on his language, but not Infinity. Please desist implying you're a dispassionate observer.Alechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234743636500643168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-29609953590336703262009-01-29T18:49:00.000+00:002009-01-29T18:49:00.000+00:00Canino,You said that you would confirm today that ...Canino,<BR/><BR/>You said that you would confirm today that someone was punched. No confirmation so far. This seems completely false to me. Come on guys, if someone had been punched, don't you think the university would have published a statement condemning it?<BR/><BR/>Let's stop making up news without any proof.Captain Askateth Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03928697187042892008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-85419154624840426772009-01-29T18:08:00.000+00:002009-01-29T18:08:00.000+00:00>> to perhaps redeem our University in the e...>> to perhaps redeem our University in the eyes of outsiders reading this blog.<BR/><BR/>I have very high opinions of your University after reading this blog! It's certainly improved after the Clare College bruhaha over the Motoons.Alechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234743636500643168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-4443307437240125152009-01-29T18:01:00.000+00:002009-01-29T18:01:00.000+00:00I think it is time inject some reality that is ref...I think it is time inject some reality that is reflective of the institution we are - if for nothing else, to perhaps redeem our University in the eyes of outsiders reading this blog. I was angered by this purportedly 'peaceful' protest and it took some time to put my finger on why exactly. Then, in the course of my reading, I came across a quote:<BR/><BR/>"Studies of the radical protest movement at the University of California Berkeley have shown that it was fueled not only by individuals with high moral levels, but also by those at the lowest levels - people who used the movement as a vent for repressed anger. These amoral individuals [NB: i.e. you 'occupiers'] justified their behavior in terms of the values articulated by the morally mature activists, but directed their actions as much toward the fulfillment of their own individual needs and the expression of personal hostility as toward the achievement of social goals."*<BR/><BR/>At the end of the article, the author explains that these 'activists' who demand empathy, but do not grant it, who demand change, but do not have the support of the underlying majority - yet try to challenge the authority, take on a predatory (or authoritarian) approach to seek power. This then invokes a predatory response from the authority since there are no channels for empathy or communication, as the 'activists' become steadfast that they are morally right. In other words, you asked for what you got by your choice of method! At the same time, you have undermined those who really do selflessly support in 'the cause.'<BR/><BR/>Should you need any proof that your protest was not fueled by the plight of Gaza, but your own selfish needs - have a look at the result - you have raised awareness to how annoying inconsiderate people are - you haven't provoked a sensible debate on the issue (not least because you failed to bring objective facts to the table, esp in your non-informative posters - which was a waste of paper, I might add). And, in my case, you have more highly polarised the issue, rather than invoking a sympathetic response - mainly because your approach that reflected a 'lower moral development' eerily parallels with that of Hamas (reeking of injustice and ruthless disregard of for others in your quest to make your 'point'). Perhaps you identify with them more than you think and this has caused you to lose objective focus and prevented you from orchestrating a well-thought out fundraising drive, for example - or maybe that would have flat-out taken too much effort and you didn't feel like waiting. Instead of resolutely refusing to admit your gross mistakes, it may be time to read about why your protest was so unsuccessful - along with the other occupations across universities in the UK (let's be honest, nothing concrete was promised in what you are calling 'successes,' apart from assurances to 'look into it' - read the wording more carefully if you believe otherwise. In turn, other people are currently raising money by organizing fundraising events). And if you're not curious to do this reading, it may be in your best interest to leave our institution where scholarly inquiry is paramount. <BR/><BR/>On a closing note, for those academics who supported this deplorable and self-defeating form of protest, I suggest you either seek another line of profession, or at least see a shrink to explore the sources of your mis-directed hostility and seemingly histrionic tendencies. <BR/><BR/>See Richard W. Wilson (1983). Moral development and political change. World Politics, 36, p. 53-75.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-71769510156020765972009-01-29T17:27:00.000+00:002009-01-29T17:27:00.000+00:00ADAM >> "Shorty after 9pm, the Proctors...ADAM >> "Shorty after 9pm, the Proctors arrived... While complying with their requests we found them throwing away the food that our catering group had prepared." From the post we are commenting on, no less.<BR/><BR/>Given the woeful argument we've received from Infinity - we're not willing to work when we can extort money - in an attempt to save face, I'll take this with a pinch of salt.<BR/><BR/>There is also the matter of their having entered private property without reasonable food preparation facilities or with argument that they had no alternative accommodation. They are not homeless vagrants. Your efforts to compare this to a besieged squatting group, e.g. a shanty village without provisions and surrounded by a state militia, is disingenuous to say the very least.<BR/><BR/>They tried to take on the people who write and study the laws in England and Wales.<BR/><BR/>Whoopsie.<BR/><BR/>INFINITY >> please elaborate. as far as i can see this is a non-sequitur. (a => b) does not imply a or b, or anything else.<BR/><BR/>I thought it was an a priori argument. I don't intend to get mired down further in your efforts to apply the most tortuously literal definitions of a word or phrase or pursuing non-points.<BR/><BR/>There was a Police chief in Berlin...<BR/><BR/>>> oh well, only my insult falls. the actual point still stands.<BR/><BR/>Why, because you say so? Dream on!<BR/><BR/>Please tell us your name!!!Alechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234743636500643168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-91218610178717485292009-01-29T17:20:00.000+00:002009-01-29T17:20:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234743636500643168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-62369803355346106042009-01-29T17:06:00.000+00:002009-01-29T17:06:00.000+00:00> You said, "if anyone punched anyone, it ...> You said, "if anyone punched anyone, it was an agent provocateur". Either someone admitted to the faculty property as part of your occupation has been assaulting staff and/or students, with or without DA GROUP's knowledge; or members of DA GROUP are meting out summary justice to suspected infiltrators.<BR/><BR/>please elaborate. as far as i can see this is a non-sequitur. (a => b) does not imply a or b, or anything else.<BR/><BR/>> Of course, it may not to be to say that an agent provocateur did the punching, but it says an agent provocateur was punched.<BR/><BR/>oh god, this is a really desparate argument. blame english if you will, but my meaning was pretty clear. giving the context, "it" clearly referred to the subject of the previous clause.<BR/><BR/>> I'm not a lawyer, you numpty.<BR/><BR/>oh well, only my insult falls. the actual point still stands.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12006963735870437879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-10212175027836077902009-01-29T16:21:00.000+00:002009-01-29T16:21:00.000+00:00>>This would be relevant if, on departing fr...>>This would be relevant if, on departing from the faculty, food is with-held from former protesters<BR/><BR/>Both legally and morally, 2 wrongs do not make a right. You cannot starve trespassers any more than you can set fire to the building to flush them out - 'He could have used the fire escape if he wanted to' is not a valid defence. Equally if a protester starves in there, or more likely one of them is diabetic and goes hypoglycaemic the University will be liable, and quite rightly so.<BR/><BR/>>>or that food supplies they brought into the faculty were seized. <BR/><BR/>"Shorty after 9pm, the Proctors arrived... While complying with their requests we found them throwing away the food that our catering group had prepared." From the post we are commenting on, no less.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557188208738544046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-16519475759928710112009-01-29T16:01:00.000+00:002009-01-29T16:01:00.000+00:00>> Equally, trespassing is not an excuse for...>> Equally, trespassing is not an excuse for not being allowed to eat.<BR/><BR/>This would be relevant if, on departing from the faculty, food is with-held from former protesters, or that food supplies they brought into the faculty were seized. As it stands, the faculty is simply preventing the passage of certain items into its property.<BR/><BR/>This should have been held this in Billy Bunter's college.Alechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234743636500643168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-72464120475118033292009-01-29T15:58:00.000+00:002009-01-29T15:58:00.000+00:00>> do you understand the idea of "maybe...>> do you understand the idea of "maybe" and "if"? re-read what i wrote.<BR/><BR/>You said, "if anyone punched anyone, it was an agent provocateur". Either someone admitted to the faculty property as part of your occupation has been assaulting staff and/or students, with or without DA GROUP's knowledge; or members of DA GROUP are meting out summary justice to suspected infiltrators.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it may not to be to say that an agent provocateur did the punching, but it says an agent provocateur was punched. So, I'm sure a quick check with the plaintive can determine if they were plants. Now you're risking libel!<BR/><BR/>>> i don't understand how you get this from what i said. is this "lawyer logic"?<BR/><BR/>>> perhaps i am being too harsh on lawyers. in which case, you probably should quit and become a propaganda minister or something.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a lawyer, you numpty.Alechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234743636500643168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-64704717067228350612009-01-29T15:42:00.000+00:002009-01-29T15:42:00.000+00:00I am entirely undecided on whether I agree with th...I am entirely undecided on whether I agree with the aims of this occupation. I do, however, strongly disagree with those who seem to think that merely because it is inconvenient it should not be allowed. Almost all organisations are prone to apathy until presented with an unavoidable confrontation - this is why workers go on strike! This protest could have been staged on Parker's Piece; we all would have ignored it, and nothing would have been done.<BR/><BR/>I agree that 'being peaceful is not an excuse for trespass'. Equally, trespassing is not an excuse for not being allowed to eat.<BR/><BR/>I am disappointed with those on both sides of this debate who are all too happy to resort to personal attacks, or to turn what is clearly (to me) a humanitarian protest into a political one. Aside from this, I applaud those involved for standing up for their beliefs and attempting to help. Even if you are wrong, I much prefer misguided philanthropy to cynical apathy; at the end of the day I'd rather say 'I tried to help' than 'I told you so'. Wouldn't you?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14557188208738544046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-54864893946509999442009-01-29T15:15:00.000+00:002009-01-29T15:15:00.000+00:00> W.T.F? You're just said that any physical...> W.T.F? You're just said that any physical assaults were the result of agents provocateur who'd have to have gained access to the building without DA GROUP's knowledge; now you're claiming that every action or decision which has taken place did so with DA GROUP's full knowledge.<BR/><BR/>do you understand the idea of "maybe" and "if"? re-read what i wrote.<BR/><BR/>> Are you now suggesting the University is directly involved with Israeli rule over the A.Ts?<BR/><BR/>i don't understand how you get this from what i said. is this "lawyer logic"?<BR/><BR/>perhaps i am being too harsh on lawyers. in which case, you probably should quit and become a propaganda minister or something.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12006963735870437879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-7138523564791754542009-01-29T15:11:00.000+00:002009-01-29T15:11:00.000+00:00>> sorry, mate. if you've been with the ...>> sorry, mate. if you've been with the occupation you will know that any decisions made as THE GROUP is made by a very precise and long democratic process.<BR/><BR/>W.T.F? You're just said that any physical assaults were the result of agents provocateur who'd have to have gained access to the building without DA GROUP's knowledge; now you're claiming that every action or decision which has taken place did so with DA GROUP's full knowledge.<BR/><BR/>This is gibberish. <BR/><BR/>>> this is debatable - property is not the most fundamental "right" there is.<BR/><BR/>Are you now suggesting the University is directly involved with Israeli rule over the A.Ts? I know, there's a bank robbery going down somewhere, and I'm off to 'occupy' some college rooms! Don't anyone dare stop me until the bank robbery is halted!<BR/><BR/>You're loosing it mate.Alechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234743636500643168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-10580910732103385242009-01-29T14:58:00.000+00:002009-01-29T14:58:00.000+00:00> Being peaceful is not an excuse for trespass....> Being peaceful is not an excuse for trespass.<BR/>this is debatable - property is not the most fundamental "right" there is.<BR/><BR/>however, the point is that it was extremely dishonourable of the university to use such tactics when **negotiations were still open and unfinalised**<BR/><BR/>> according to one post yesterday evening, you were told to respond by 7pm. did you? <BR/><BR/>it was around that time, within 5 minutes either way. we had been drafting it for about 3-4 hours.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12006963735870437879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-2317923004615711312009-01-29T14:55:00.000+00:002009-01-29T14:55:00.000+00:00> Rational minds would see this as a failure on...> Rational minds would see this as a failure on the protest's part in letting such individuals in, but you afford yourself immunity from prosecution. You're nothing but a hypocrite.<BR/><BR/>sorry, mate. if you've been with the occupation you will know that any decisions made as THE GROUP is made by a very precise and long democratic process.<BR/><BR/>THE GROUP has not endorsed punching. if anyone did it, it was as an individual, and any rational system of ethics cannot possibly justify "prosecution".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12006963735870437879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-35919070447704500922009-01-29T14:53:00.000+00:002009-01-29T14:53:00.000+00:00> how is it coercion? you occupied their buildi...> how is it coercion? you occupied their building;<BR/>how is the threat of force not coercion??<BR/><BR/>> what would you call occupying a university facility if not coercion?<BR/>in what way did we threaten force against the law faculty??<BR/><BR/>> This is a public blog, you delusional, paranoid loonie. You cannot tell me or anyone else what to do.<BR/>when did i tell you what to do? sorry mate, you're the one over-reacting against me pointing out the possibility of nefarious bullshit (which student movements have all seen from the authorities, by the way, this is nothing new)<BR/><BR/>> And you're a sub-literate, foul mouthed totalitarian bully in the grip of the major narcissistic injury.<BR/>oh noes! i used swear words! I AM A FASCIST TOTALITARIANUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12006963735870437879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-4767212049651341802009-01-29T13:33:00.000+00:002009-01-29T13:33:00.000+00:00"This is a wholly unacceptable way for an institut..."This is a wholly unacceptable way for an institute of education to behave towards its own members engaged in a peaceful protest."<BR/><BR/>Being peaceful is not an excuse for trespass. Owners of property do not lose the right to remove trespassers from the property just because the trespassers are being peaceful.Jim Fishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11012755289814716941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-28958887083460313772009-01-29T11:23:00.000+00:002009-01-29T11:23:00.000+00:00My word, Infinity, you're becoming unglued.>...My word, Infinity, you're becoming unglued.<BR/><BR/>>> Alec Macpherson does not exist in the Cambridge network on Facebook.<BR/><BR/>Oh, diddums, is that nasty man invading your carefully selected talking shop?<BR/><BR/>>> I suggest that perhaps the University authorities have been flamebaiting and propagandising on the blog and other internet spaces.<BR/><BR/>This is a public blog, you delusional, paranoid loonie. You cannot tell me or anyone else what to do.<BR/><BR/>>> none of us at the occupation have heard about anything like this.<BR/><BR/>Doesn't mean it didn't happen.<BR/><BR/>>> if anyone punched anyone, it was an agent provocateur.<BR/><BR/>Rational minds would see this as a failure on the protest's part in letting such individuals in, but you afford yourself immunity from prosecution. You're nothing but a hypocrite.<BR/><BR/>>> as for my identity that can be found with a minor bit of searching.<BR/><BR/>Why don't you tell us, as you're so keen on unmasking or depersoning others.<BR/><BR/>>> i call bullshit<BR/><BR/>>> you really are a spoilt little sh1t.<BR/><BR/>>> what we are doing is fuck all.<BR/><BR/>>> grow some fuck1ng tolerance.<BR/><BR/>And you're a sub-literate, foul mouthed totalitarian bully in the grip of the major narcissistic injury.<BR/><BR/>JACK >> This is most likely a rumour (maybe started by zionists who support the killing of as many Gazan children the world will let them get away with.)<BR/><BR/>And you're another sub-Leninist gimp. There was a Police chief in Berlin...<BR/><BR/>>> The wall is a symbol of racism:<BR/><BR/>The "wall" is predominately fence and not commenced on until wave after wave of murderous attacks on Israeli civilians, which it has abated.<BR/><BR/>>> to divide Arabs and Israelis, for any Arabs will "pollute" Israel.<BR/><BR/>Like 20% of the population?<BR/><BR/>>> ChrisC - the VC is female. Maybe you should check out who you are emailing before you make sexist assumptions<BR/><BR/>It is commonplace to use the male pronouns when referring to senior position. Regrettable, but to bundle it with all sexism or imply bad faith on the speaker is yet more passive aggression and trying to shut-down the argument on the basis on non-points.Alechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03234743636500643168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-71755507612801912482009-01-29T11:22:00.000+00:002009-01-29T11:22:00.000+00:00I just want to say something in response to Jack's...I just want to say something in response to Jack's repeated rants concerning "racism" and "ethnic cleansing" and "walls to divide Jews from Arabs" and how Israelis think "Arabs pollute Israel".<BR/><BR/><EM>20% of Israel's internal population is Arab Muslim. These Arabs enjoy full legal rights including the right to vote and the right to public services. They have more legal rights than they would have as citizens of Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Gaza or the West Bank.</EM><BR/><BR/>Anti-Israelis have such trouble accounting for this anomalous evidence that they never, ever mention it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-580841853993598932009-01-29T10:42:00.000+00:002009-01-29T10:42:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15027744761287275783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-9831038860172813632009-01-29T10:29:00.000+00:002009-01-29T10:29:00.000+00:00Well spoken Jack, i completely agree on your 2.34 ...Well spoken Jack, i completely agree on your 2.34 comment!chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12455206247004884022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-38647156421360068552009-01-29T10:24:00.000+00:002009-01-29T10:24:00.000+00:00Just thought to let you know of this poll..http://...Just thought to let you know of this poll..<BR/><BR/>http://www.srcf.ucam.org/ffsc/poll/?votingsuccess=6<BR/><BR/>It's an opinion poll on Cambridge University's stance on various issues<BR/>linked to the current situation in Gaza, so hopefully a chance for students<BR/>to have some input.chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12455206247004884022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-22404441371082846612009-01-29T10:22:00.000+00:002009-01-29T10:22:00.000+00:00and seriously, while the palestinians certainly do...and seriously, while the palestinians certainly don't have the same educational facilities as you do in cambridge, they have better learning conditions than many MANY people around the world. they have dozens of aid groups helping them. they get hundreds of millions of euros in direct aid every year.<BR/><BR/>other people don't even have a nearby university to go to, assuming they actually graduated from a nearby high school (which they don't have either). after they finished elementary school (if they weren't busy working)<BR/>what have you done for them?<BR/><BR/>your interest in these people is not because you're tolerant. it's because you are _intolerant_. to israel. <BR/><BR/>seriously, who do you think you're fooling?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12523681607534273926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676837177320636213.post-27844899924639457302009-01-29T10:15:00.000+00:002009-01-29T10:15:00.000+00:00coercion is unacceptable?what would you call occup...coercion is unacceptable?<BR/>what would you call occupying a university facility if not coercion?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12523681607534273926noreply@blogger.com