It's now 25/02/13 and I attended the debate on the 21/02/13 at the UWS on the question of Scotland breaking up the UK. Though expecting to see hundreds in attendance after the boasting about numbers on facebook, there were only about 50 people there if that many. I have to say that as a first attempt to blatantly rig a meeting and make sure that the Uni's favourite side (snp) got every advantage it was embarrassing. Planted snp speakers in the audience with prepared speeches were ushered in by the chair at regular intervals and Derek Mackay snp MSP was given 3/4 times more opportunities than anyone else to speak, he was also able to interrupt others and speak over anyone else when he wanted to. The audience of mainly snp students played their part by trying to shout down anyone who disagreed with the snp line and broke into orchestrated applause and cheering when one of the snp said anything. It took me a full 25 minutes with my hand raised to be asked to speak , despite me sitting right in front of the chairman and my Labour colleague Jim Sharkey who was sat next to me spent the whole evening with his hand raised trying to come in to the debate to no avail. This was marketed as an attempt to start a debating society in the University of the West of Scotland and I can only advise anyone who might have been interested in such a venture not to waste their time unless you want to get involved in an snp mutual admiration society where they only talk among themselves and then only to sing the praises of the snp and traduce labour. You would be as well to go the pub and join in arguing with the saloon bar politicians once you have all had a bit too much to drink. On returning home I was relieved to see that students in another university (Glasgow) not very far away from this shambolic stitch up had voted against independence, their poll involved over 2,500 and the WSU mustered about 50. Something that the WSU should perhaps think about before trying such an obviously disingenuous stunt again.
The hall looked as if a fire alarm had gone off leaving a handful of rough sleepers dotted around. The turnout was a humiliation for the UWS yes campaign, their immature deceitful conduct and most of all for the university. They now have an even bigger problem with credibility and integrity than they had before and believe me it was already pretty appalling. The snp people present were an inarticulate mob rehearsing the arguments of the seventies. I did what I usually do in a hostile and ignorant environment, I wait to see if I am going to be allowed to contribute on an equal basis and whether I will be heard with respect and when it becomes clear that I am not being treated equally and not being shown respect I respond in kind but; I always give the opposition a fair chance to reveal how they want to conduct the debate. The steward present made a show of speaking to audience members who said anything anti snp while allowing the snp supporters to behave like a drunken rabble. If that is how the snp want to run a so called debate then they should not imagine for a second that I and others will roll over and let them get away with it. The debate was won easily by the NO side but there was no chance of that being acknowledged by the snp gang in the hall, most of them silly and too inexperienced to realize that shouting the loudest does not mean you are winning it more often than not means you are masking your incompetence, that is not winning a debate it is an orchestrated deception.
Any way I look forward to the next occasion if there is one. BTW along with others I expected the chair to announce the result of the Glasgow University referendum vote which was declared a full hour before this farce ended but, alas they didn't do it. If the No vote had lost instead of winning at Glasgow Uni. is it possible do you think that we might have heard it announced?
33 comments:
Terry, shine your light on my darkness yet again...With a hall 'packed with SNP supporters,' presumably all in favour of a YES vote, how the hell can you claim to have won?
Were you and Jim Sharkey the Tellers?
Byeck said..Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:38:00 pm.
Language problems again? I think you are taking the piss here. I know lots of people from Yorkshire and they are not that stupid.
"packed with snp supporters" means that the snp have taken steps to make sure that they have the majority and that they will be able to shout loudest. It does not mean the hall is packed as in full.
No don't thank me I regard it as missionary work.
Kelly @ 5.42
Yes, but if the SNP folk were in the majority, how do you work out you won the debate?
Either you and the lovely Sharkey acted as Tellers and rigged the count, or you are even more of a silver tongued smoothie than I care to dwell on.
Sounds like you're spitting the dummy because you lost a debate, Cicero. How could anyone fail to be swayed by a speaker as erudite and articulate as you?
Anonymous said.
Saturday, March 02, 2013 12:09:00 pm
Cicero seconded by Danton would be shouted down and abused by the hooligans of the snp UWS mob if they dared to disagree with the snp line.
When the meeting is crooked and people are planted in the audience who are snp thugs and any dissent is treated by abuse and bullying I regard that as a victory for those who were being cheated.
awe, diddums, you sound upset. mind you, jim sharkey, is a waste of space and a wee misogynist bully. and yes, i would say it to his face.
byeee
Kelly @ 4.37
"We lost the vote, but I'm in charge and I say we won, so the rest of you can bugger off."
How very Stalinista!
What a strange wee world you inhabit councillor.
Bizarre.
Why do you insist on lying? Why tell such outright lies in a public forum where they can be quoted back at you every day until you die drunk and alone in your hate filled unionist wallow?
BTB. It was LABOUR that ran from forming an anti-tory alliance in 2010. YOUR LABOUR you sad excuse for a human!
Anonymous said...Sunday, March 03, 2013 9:42:00 pm.
I haven't told any lies but BTW I want to say this and again it's no lie. If I wanted to talk to or about someone the way you do here I would never in my wildest dreams do so without facing them, you are a craven coward.
Anonymous said...Sunday, March 03, 2013 1:40:00 pm
It might be strange to you but, what kind of world do you inhabit when you are to scared to identify yourself? now that is really bizarre, just what kind of a loser and coward are you?
Byeck said...Kelly @ 4.37Sunday, March 03, 2013 12:41:00 pm.
Not for the first time you are speaking from a position of complete ignorance.
Anonymous said...Sunday, March 03, 2013 2:46:00 am
Well of course you would say that to his face wouldn't you, 'Put em up,come on, put em up' Mr, eh, what was your name again?
Kelly @ 5.38
As rebuttals go, this one is a wee bit short on facts, even for you.
I honestly dont think it would persuade Hamish on the Paisley omnibus that I got it wrong.
On the subject of the referendum, Tery, you must have been thrilled by the decision of the CWU in Edinburgh to affiliate with a pro-independence Trades Union group? Of course, it was a trifling 90% majority. I'm glad to see that the case for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelan, of which you're apprently so fond, is so popular amongst posties, aren't you? Or did the SNP fix the vote?
Cllr Kelly,
You may remember me from the UWS Independence Debate in which you refer to in this blog. I was the Better Together student panellist, Will Little.
I was rather shocked when reading your illustrious and misleading, not to mention badly written, blog where you attacked our debate.
First of all, you attack the student chair, Jack Douglas, and the SNP MSP speaker Derek Mackay. You state that Jack was only picking out SNP/Independence supporting audience members to speak, I don't see how he would've done that unless we - including myself who was arguing for the protection of the Union - were to set up and plan this beforehand. From the panel I was able to see, quite clearly, that a majority of the audience were identified as "Yes" voters. It's important to point out that our debate was open to the public as long as they confirmed their attendance on a guest list - available on a public Facebook event - as the UWS Union is a "private members club" - I.E, for students. So, it is fair to say that no matter who was picked that they would be likely to be a "yes" supporter. Perhaps you and your colleague were not "picked" to speak as when you were allowed to speak you attacked Derek Mackay and Drew McGowan - the chair may have been put off by this. I do recall you shouting down, in particularly, Yes panellist Drew McGowan. Whenever Drew spoke you constantly heckled him to a point where his argument - despite not agreeing with him myself - was not heard. This lowered the tone, as many pointed out afterwards, of the debate.
It is quite sad and disappointing to see you talk down our university, which Renfrewshire's only university, whilst boasting about Glasgow University for the mere fact that they voted "No" in their mock referendum. You also make claims of UWS, which you say is WSU for some silly reason, "mustered about 50" for a referendum. I don't know what meeting/debate - whatever you want to call it - you were attending as it couldn't of been ours as we did not have any sort of referendum. We did, however, have a show of hands to see the make-up of our audience - I don't suppose you'll want to see the referendum in 2014 be carried through by a show of hands, do you?
The "steward", that you mention in your "fantastic" blog, was the convenor of the UWS debating society - not an SNP supporter, as you claim. In fact, he's a Liberal Democrat - I'd say that was worse than a nationalist, but none the less he isn't a nationalist. He spoke to several audience members about their conduct during the debate. Perhaps he warned you of your persistent heckling and shouting down of Derek and Drew - in particular Derek. If you have any quarrels with Mr Mackay, I'd advise you to take them up with him personally, face to face rather than interrupt our debate continuously.
There is only one part of your blog in which I agree with - that the "No" side won the debate. However, such a win was not aided by yourself. You talk of the Yes side illustrating "immature deceitful conduct" and compared it to a "drunken rabble", however I'd go as far to say that this line describes your own behaviour perfectly. I digress.. It is fair to say, without a shadow of a doubt, I am utterly ashamed to be sharing a platform that resembles the Better Together campaign with people like yourself. We are fighting to win the hearts and minds of Scots the length and breadth of our country, to ensure the future of a sovereign, and truly united, United Kingdom - and you hinder such an admirable campaign.
If you wish to pursue this conversation, I would not hesitate to meet you and talk face-to-face. Feel free to contact me via Facebook --> www.facebook.com/will.little.357
Regards - to some extent,
William Little.
Byeck. Experience has taught me not to try to explain why you got something wrong, life is too short.
Anonymous said...Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:54:00 pm
I wasn’t thrilled I was amused. Your take on the vote is interesting, do you know the attendance? Do you know who the branch secretary was? But best of all do you think that the Post Office Union will support the snp? The snp hate the Trade Union Movement and this will not change that, Union members know what the snp think of them.
Anonymous said...Tuesday, March 05, 2013 8:54:00 pm
I wasn’t thrilled I was amused. Your take on the vote is interesting, do you know the attendance? Do you know who the branch secretary was? But best of all do you think that the Post Office Union will support the snp? The snp hate the Trade Union Movement and this will not change that, Union members know what the snp think of them.
Will Little said.. Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:20:00 pm
Will. you need to learn how to play hard ball, you allowed Mackay and the mob to bully you. It doesn't matter how good you are if they are not going to let you speak you have to learn to deal with it and if people like the snp sense that you are not up for it they will go for you like sharks in a feeding frenzy, they are thugs and you have to stand up to them.
I explained in my blog what I do in such situations. 'Drew' was quite happy to talk over people when he wanted as did Mackay to an even greater degree and the chair allowed it, so I did the same, what is wrong with that? The snp set the standard of behaviour not me, I just did what they were doing.
You are doing an awful lot of nit picking here which usually suggests a very weak case. Ask Derek for yourself and I'm sure he will tell you I don't have a problem with him, he tries to talk over everyone and bully them and he would have known from experience that Jim Sharkey and I were never going to let him away with that but; he still chose to do it so if you want to blame someone for lowering the tone look at him.
I would not normally do this but you need to learn.
"I was rather shocked when reading your illustrious and misleading, not to mention badly written, blog"
Your words Will,so are the following.
"You may remember me from the UWS Independence Debate in which you refer to in this blog"
"I do recall you shouting down, in particularly, Yes panellist Drew McGowan"
"for the mere fact"
"to see you talk down our university, which Renfrewshire's only university"
"it couldn't of been ours"
"There is only one part of your blog in which I agree with"
"I am utterly ashamed to be sharing a platform that resembles the Better Together campaign"
What does this tell us Will? Well, a) you are clearly not studying English and b) before being publicly critical of your opponent's standard of writing you should double check that you are not living in a glass house. Put it down to experience and learn from it.
This is me being nice by the way, because we are supposed to be on the same side. Trust me Will you don't want this stuff plastered over facebook.
Oh dear Mr Kelly.
Do your knackers hurt, they should do?
Resorting to criticism of spelling and grammar, the mark of a lost argument. Then you compound this pathetic bluster and episode of ' whatabout ' by producing a short list of his faults with errors in the conclusion from you!
I hope anyone reading sees the condescension and obfuscation in your reply to Mr Little.
Calling it a reply is being generous.
Well as I said I do not as a rule do this but it was Mr. Little who chose to be critical of me calling my blog “badly written” he is as well learning this now as later on. Had I wanted to damage him I could have ridiculed him a lot worse and before a much larger audience. I receive posts, emails, letters etc. all the time which are badly written. They contain examples of bad spelling, punctuation etc. My rule is to disregard the mistakes as long as I can understand their meaning. If however the writer is critical of my grammar; spelling etc. then they, like Mr. Little and you as well can expect me to retaliate, hence my reply to Mr. Little, I don’t think that is unfair.
"they should do?" Does this constitute a question? It’s a minefield isn’t it? Now that, was a question.
Kelly, stop splitting grammatical hairs and let's get back to the insane, incoherent Terry we're used to
"they should do?" Does this constitute a question?"
I can only presume you read the entire sentence.
Or would that be a forlorn hope?
Andrew O'Neil said...Monday, March 11, 2013 1:25:00 am
You've certainly got a brass neck Andrew I'll give you that.
Byeck said...Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:48:00 am
I am extremely busy but, if you make a superhuman effort to write something sensible I will try to find time to answer.
James said - Cllr Terry Kelly,
This blog has only just been drawn to my attention. I was at the meeting and I find it almost unthinkable that someone of your standing is slagging off the UWS. This UWS is in the town you serve and is attended by many of your constituents. I will be doing everything in my power to ensure these constituents are made aware of your comments and I will work my backside off day and night between now and 2017 to ensure you are unseated.
James said - Cllr Terry Kelly,
Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:49:00 pm
The snp students presumably from the UWS at the meeting were a squalid bunch o0f bullies and if you were one of them then you are the same.
Before you do everything in your power to unseat me is there any chance you might find the bottle to identify yourself? No wonder the English find it so easy to beat the crap out of you lot.
My name is James. My name was on my post. I do not believe in posting under anon. My full name is James Henson if you want my full name. I am not a member of the SNP I am a Liberal Democrat, I am also against independence.
Can I ask what you mean when you say " No wonder the English find it so easy to beat the crap out of you lot"??
Also my comments are with regards to your description of the students of UWS and UWS in your blog. How you were treated by activists is of no concern to me.
James said...Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:36:00 am
Liberal Democrats IMO are the worst political criminals in the world. They are always for sale to the highest bidder, they believe in nothing and they stand for nothing. My remark about the English was directed at the snp. As far as the UWS is concerned I have no problem with their university duties, I assume that 2+2 = 4 at UWS? My comments were directed at the snp student mob who operate there and my criticism of the university as far as they are concerned is that these students are bringing the place in to disrepute and they should sort it out.
We can agree to disagree regarding my party. However what do you mean by the English find it easy to beat the crap out of the SNP? Can you elaborate please?
Also what do you mean by you comment 2+2=4 at UWS?
James
James said...Saturday, March 30, 2013 3:53:00 pm
If you try to explain a bit more precisely what it is that you don't understand I will try to help.
Post a Comment