Gair Rhydd

1. Matthew

This article seems a little premature and I’m not sure what the point of it is. Is the Gair Rhydd saying that CUDS should drop MacFarlanes as their sponsor? I think that would be a bit strange as they are innocent until proven guilty.

I suspect that the Gair Rhydd would prefer to get a story out of, essentially, a non-issue.

2. Sarah

I don’t think this article actually has anything to do with the debating society – you didn’t concentrate on the actual issue at hand here, you just seemed to have a go at the debating society for no reason what so ever.

3. Craig

Why would anyone within CUDs be able to comment? Clearly the article is written on speculation and rumour. If it was to be found out there were discrepancies in the way the Union was run, would this make all societies and sports clubs complicit in the alleged ‘evil’? I was under the impression that it wasn’t enough to ‘allege’ you actually had to prove it, before you condemned. Linking Sam Knight to a supposedly ‘unethical’ move he had no awareness of and to add wasn’t ever on the CUDs sponsorship committee. Is perhaps like linking Sam Knight to the war in Iraq, he’s a citizen of the UK, how could he let such an action happen! The disclaimer at the end that Sam was unavailable for comment before this went to press; despite his name being explicitly mentioned and linked is simply poor form.

4. Dee

this is a rather disgusting attempt to imply that the debating society and certain members of the union exec are morally questionable due to their distant association with Macfarlanes. These individuals & the society have had no knowledge of what the firm actually does in its function other than the basics just as no other club or society has in depth knowledge of the workings of their sponsors. It is despicable to single out the debating society and drag its good name in the mud like this. It is also quiet laughable that this article wouldn’t likely gone to print if Macfarlanes had not been the debating societies sponsors. And yes Sarah id does seem to look like the writer is merely having a go at the debating society as they failed to mention that macfarlanes doesn’t just sponsor debating society but also works with the law school a great deal and sponsors many its activities and competitions. However the worst part of this is that the gair rhydd jumps at any opportunity to damage the reputation of clubs as societies and is yet so apathetic when it comes to helping them. This also factored in with the debating society’s record of always going out of the way to help the union and benefit the students at this university.

5. James

Matthew: non issue? when did it become okay to do very bad things to people? you should be ashamed of yourself!! ignoring the attrocity because it doesnt suit you at the moment!!

and isnt the debating society supposed to be all about making statements and free speech? and yet you criticize eleanor for reporting an important story. it seems like you guys are changing your tune.

if you guys trully felt like you provide service to the union and students you wouldnt be so quiet on such issues. the hypocracy!

it seems you all are just trying to protect your assets out of cowardice. so if this article shines a light on such attitudes, Im all for it.

what is that you say at your events when you disagree with someones position? .. SHAME!!!

6. Augustine

Though this article might have good intentions as to what it is trying to achieve, it must be realized that the debate society has no knowledge nor control of the goings-on inside the company. Firstly, Macfarlane’s has, as said before, not been found guilty, and the allegations have only come out after the funding has already been spent. There is no necessity for CUDS to be sponsored by Macfarlane’s next year. In light of of a possible, (but not certain) guilty verdict, CUDS will probably rethink any sort of sponsorship from them.

But I LOVE the drama of this article! Kind of the drama that’s created when my distant third adopted cousin is alleged to have shot some dude, and then I’m suddenly seen as dangerous with anger management problems. It’s not a tenuous link! Beware of my wrath.

And seriously, if you were GOING to write on this, why would you purposefully misquote something said. Which you did. Shame.

7. Kerry

James, I suspect the non-issue reference was not to the events, which are indeed horrific, but to the linking with the debating society. Furthermore, in terms of free speech, no one has attacked the reporters right to report, but rather in linking the activities of the debating society to Macfarlanes in a wholly fallacious manner.

8. James

also,

im assuming it is the busines sof the ethical and enviornmental officer to investigate the people he associates. clearly he made a bad choice with mcfarlnes and debating society. and a person who is supposed to represent the students, he should be questioned as to such associations.

9. Catrin

I think the reason this article has been criticised is not because of the issue it reports but the way in which it is aimed at the debating society. Macfarlanes are not only involved with the debating society, and they obviously exercise no control over what Macfarlanes do. They are innocent until proven guilty, and as Ed stated, the debating society will be able to make a decision once the outcome is known.

10. Augustine

I agree with Kerry. “Free speech” doesn’t entail agreeing with what has been reported, if one feels that the reporting has 1) Taken false information and 2) Spreading a wrong message, then it is within that person’s right to exercise their right to free speech.

11. Matthew

James – on the issue of Sam as the Ethical and Environmental Officer, how was he supposed to know that at some point in the future a company linked with a society he was a member of would be accused of doing something wrong? MacFarlanes are innocent until proven guilty, and have not done anything wrong in the past – so how exactly could Sam predict the future and therefore distance himself from CUDS?

Its a non-issue until the court case is resolved and its proved either way. Like I said, innocent until proven guilty.

If MacFarlanes were found to have done something wrong, then it would be alright to question the association. But not until then.

12. Kerry

James, that second comment is incredibly moronic. Firstly having that position does not mean Sam Kinight should scrutinise associates in a totally different way to anyone else. Secondly even is Sam joined this year, in September, then even with a great deal of research this would not have come up as Macfarlanes were not yet involved in the scenario being discussed. The same applies to the Debating Society, we had no knowledge of this as it was not an issue at the time, although it may well be in the future. As has elsewhere been pointed out, Macfalanes also sponsor various Law realted activities such as mooting. Is your judgement therefore also thatanyone who has engaged in mooting, and all of their associates are also morally questionable?

13. James

look i just want to point out that there is an opporunity for the debating society who are often very vocal about even the most irrelevant things to condemn the actions of these heartless solcitors.

However, I very much doubt debating will say anything as £1500 is indeed a great deal of money as the president has said.

i might also add that this isnt the first time debating society have been on the side of bad people. As i recall didnt you have a debate supporting hamas, a terrorist organisation. people who are proven to be purpotrators of great evil.

surely, the union should not allow its societies to associate with such people? whats next giving a platform to the bnp?

if sam had no knowledge of the business mcfarlnes was involved in surely he now has the opporunity as the ethical officer to say something. the silence is defening.

14. Maurice

Whilst the events the author has alluded to in the article are horrible. The main concern with this article is purely the fact the author seems to be attaching undue blame and accusation upon the debating society for an association which until now has been beyond reproach. How on earth were the debating society’s exec supposed to have been aware of the inner workings of such a big firm as Macfarlanes. To attach such blame to the society for associating with a firm, which has yet to be found guilty, seems utterly unfair. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful gift, but do you honestly feel that it’s fair to single out and mar the reputation of a society and it’s members for something which was wholly out of their control and beyond their knowledge?

15. Matthew

James – give us an example of when CUDS has been “vocal about the most irrelevant things”.

Also – we never had a debate “in support of Hamas”. Do you need to look up the definition of debate? Some people argued in support of Hamas, but equally people argued against Hamas. Equal time was given to both sides.

Its a pity you don’t seem to be able to grasp the issues properly, just sling mud wherever you can.

16. Ade

The issue here is a sponsor of the debating society has been accused of being unethical. I stress the word accused, as it has not been proved. The debating society are therefore doing nothing whong as these are allegations, if these allegations turn out to be true, i am sure the debating society will review this relationship, and if the dont the Ethical and Environmential can then act. However these are only allegations and nothing more at this point

17. John

I agree with much of what is being said in defense of debating society and sam. However, the idea that any union society has benifited from what could potentially be blood money is a bit difficult to digest and it may be in the interest of debating society to not continue their sponsorship agreement with Macfarlanes as even the allegation is damaging both to the debating society and the Union. Perhaps this is an opporuntity for the Union to create a system by which certain companies are rejected from being sponsors in the future.

18. Augustine

James-

Contrary to what you might think, debate is not full of heartless people, of COURSE we condemn the actions, if they did actually occur. The issue is as follows:

Macfarlanes, as has been repeated many times, if innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Until then, we suspend judgment as to their guilt.

I personally think that if such a thing did happen, that would be terrible. And I don’t think ANY debater on CUDS would say any differently. But the article has made an attack on the society as a result of these allegations, and this is what we are disputing.

And why would Sam have an obligation to say something, even now? No confirmation as to who the next sponsor of CUDS will be. No verdict. Why would the debate society be obliged to defend themselves?

Matt is right about Hamas. It was a debate as to whether or not they ought to be considered legit. The last time I check, talking about someone didn’t make you best friends.

19. kerry

John, what you have said is incredibly sensible, and would be in line with the whole ethical investment movement taking place. I add one word of caution, not in contradiction however; the issue with Macfarlanes involvement, so far as it is morally questionable, is not their defence of the company, but their actions in doing so.

20. Ade

John I swear you reside somewhere in utopia, If the ECB after due dilligence could not work out Stanford was a fraud, what chance do societies have of finding these things out. Although I agree that some companies have terrible records on ethical and environmental issues, i feel societies should be allowed to decide who sponsors them, what we need with societies is less not more regulation

21. James

that debate was a total sham!

the debate was full of palestinian sypathisers many of which were clearly anti-semetic and the guy running debate was clearly biased and when asked about holding the debate on a sabbath he was completely argogant and anti-religious. such an attitude leaves me with no faith in you guys. Im sorry but you have no credibility with me.

22. Matthew

Oh well James I’m sure we’ll survive.

For the record, it was an open event. If lots of ‘palestinian sympathisers’ showed up its because they were the ones who could be bothered to attend.

And I find it an offense for you to claim that the guy running the debate was biased. How was he biased? I was there too, and the whole thing was run perfectly professionally. If we were biased towards one side why would we have sought out such excellent speakers for the opposing side?

23. Marvin

James, I’m sorry that you felt the debate was a sham, but despite your comments you must have seen that fair and equal time was given to both sides. The vast majority of individuals leaving the event commented on how enlightening it was to hear voices from both sides of the debate, so to label it as a sham is quite inappropriate. In addition to what Matthew has just said, the guy running the debate was without a shadow of a doubt unbiased. The event was extremely informative.

24. Badar

Unprofessionally written article shall I say. James tbh one of the most puerile comments i’d read in a long time is “As i recall didnt you have a debate supporting hamas, a terrorist organisation. people who are proven to be purpotrators of great evil”. The debate was never about supporting Hamas, it was infact more built on the notion “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. we’d a good debate on that one and far as I remember all the speakers were honourary and furthermore the current president very vociferously supported Israel in that debate. Secondly comin back to where it all started, how could the debating society, or any other as for that matter, be expected to know that a sponsor that it has today is going to be ‘ACCUSED’ of some depraved act some months from now? Is there a way we can predict whats gonna happen in future? Sponsorship for next year would be decided on the verdict of case but to excoriate the society for all this is reprehensible.

25. Kerry

Just to clear up, as I believe that (wholly unitentionally) there is a slight digression in the facts about the issue. Macfarlanes are wholly and utterly unrelated in anyway to the actions of the toxic dumping and any of its consequences. The issue is that they may have tried, in defence of the company who hired them, to manipulate evidence, and it is that which is potentially controversial.

26. Jamie

In fairness, Sam Knight actually wasn’t available for comment – his phone was off and the news team tried to ring him several times.

There is a story here about the fact that the Debating Society’s sponsor is involved in such a sensitive case and has been accused of bribery. But it’s been played up here.

The Debating Society’s president didn’t know of the accusations, which clearly exonerates them. And asking for Society members’ views on the allegations is just unnecessary and confused.

The facts of the story are interesting and worth writing – especially given that it seems at least some members of the society didn’t know of the allegations – but not in this sort of a sensational way.

27. Eddy

Ok. So bad terrible thing happens in Africa – I think we all dislike that. People accused of bad thing hire a lawyer because they have a right to legal representation. The lawyers the victims hire are accusing one lawyer of the defence of doing things that lawyers shouldn’t really do. The organisation that the lawyer works for are supporters of many university projects, both academic and leisurely. Before the bad thing that one lawyer is accused to have done actually allegedly happened, that organisation sponsored an event, not the society, an event. The organisation and the society have had no further contact since that date. The organisation has not informed the society of the situation, or their views on it. We, like the writer of this article, read the BBC website and are waiting with anticipation as to the result of the trial. Maybe facts are boring, but they’re undervalued and under-emphasised in the course of making something more readable. The problem in doing that is that no one will look favourably upon the society – ok, so we ask for no favours – but some people will look unfavourably and spread poisonous rumours, and this article has shown absolutely no intention of protecting what it knows to be a blameless and loyal society of the Union from such damaging consequences.

Thanks to those who liked my chairing, it’s really not that difficult. One tip is to let everyone have their say and engage in sincere and intelligent debate but if one person keeps coming up with nonsense and is quite clearly a moron, it’s best just to smile and ignore him.

One your point of the Sabbath James, I did express my regret that a minority of people felt that they could not attend this debate. As I explained to the President of the Jewish Society at the time, this was simply the only time that a venue of that size and the calibre of speakers, such as they were, could make it. I was also reassured that, Sabbath or not, it would not necessarily mean that Jews couldn’t attend.

28. Dee

I’ve been biting my tongue for the last few hours mainly because I don’t regard this article accurate and legitimate enough to garner more attention than I have already given it. Thus I commented in the beginning and felt that was enough. However, I was rather knocked back by a particular comment by James which I assume to be an attack at me.

Well James My name is Syed Dee Ghazi, I am a former president of CUDS and every now and then I offer my services to the society and organize public debates like the one regarding Hamas. I am introducing myself because you clearly don’t know me at all. If you did know me you wouldn’t make such false accusation about me. You have already personally attacked two of my really good friends on this and to be honest none of us should be dealing with you any longer as your ignorance is an offence to our intelligence. None the less I feel I must say something in my defence as you have accused me of being biased, harbouring some sort of antisemetic resentment towards Israel. First of all you’re an idiot. Second of all that debate was perhaps more heavily weighted towards an opposition to dialogue with Hamas. The speakers against Hamas were of higher calibre to start off with but at the end of the debate they were unable to persuade. I take great offence to you calling and members of that audience in that debate antisemetic as there was not a single speech or comment made which was offensive in any manner. Had there been any, our esteemed chair Ed Carey would have dealt with it promptly & effectively. In I regards to the Sabbath – I have no clue what you are talking about but I must make it clear that I was very apologetic about the timing but as I had explained to everyone who asked it was unavoidable.

Your clearly have some issue with the debating society, its members and particularly me. However, before you defame me in the future I suggest assessing yourself as you clearly prejudged me because I am muslim or asian (thus ide have to be anti Israel). You are truly vile and insignificant person who gets off on arguing to get noticed. So far very little of what you have said has been in the slightest way insightful and it has rarely touched on anything relevant. I pity your inability to understand the actual issues and I ponder as to how they allowed you into university. I suggest you seek help for your insecurities and refrain from dumping your baggage on my friends and the society I am so proud of being a part of. I hope that you take this opportunity to reassess yourself, failing that perhaps you should just keep quiet and stop embarrassing yourself.

29. James 2

I’d like to point out that I am not the same James as the cretin posting above, who seems unable to tell the difference between CUDS and Greenpeace. The article clearly is just opportunistic, but well done for spotting the link between Macfarlanes and CUDS. Obviously no self respecting intellect is going to believe that a casual group of students are really implicated in any of the goings on reported.

I just think that it’s a nice little chain of association. The photos and reference to Sam Knight make it look as though the story has something to do with the actions of which Trafigura are accused. Of course, the link to CUDS has nothing to do with this at all, it’s to do with Macfarlanes, who are not involved in these activities, but are merely representing those accused of them. Macfarlanes are accused of something else entirely, they may be guilty, but I’m inclined to withold judgement, I imagine that devious legal teams are doing a little of the dirty on both sides of the case in question. That’s what legal teams do, I’ve seen the movies.

Mainly though, it really is the kind of story that indicates that too little of actual interest happens in a university to fill a newspaper with gripping and interesting news items from cover to cover. Give the writer some slack, they’re just doing their job. It’s cretins like James who are incapable of applying their critical faculties to the information passing from their eyes to their mouth, which are the problem.

30. Kathy

Cheers to cretin-James for the idea, perhaps we should hold a debate about whether the BNP should have a platform or not…

31. James 2

It’s also important to point out, well maybe not important but relevant, that at the time that CUDS sought sponsorship for there event, and at the time that that event occurred and the generously donated money was spent, nothing was or could have been known of the potential malfeasance on the part of Macfarlanes.

In Macfarlanes’ defense, whether the allegations are true or not, they are still to be commended for their generosity and their support not just of CUDS, who could not possibly operate as they do without significant external support, but of many other student societies and groups throughout the country.

32. Badar

Feel sorry for all my friends who became subjected to such libelous reporting. we don’t owe explanation to james especially since he is a bigot adamant on mud-slinging. A quote goes lyk..

“I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person”.

33. Rim

I think that this is a real shame. It honestly seems like that poor Eleanor is being bullied. She only wrote the truth and the debating society is just becoming defensive because they are embarrassed. You guys need to get a grip and deal with the situation. It almost seems as though you are harbouring some guilt with such a reaction. I don’t think it is appropriate for the debating society to be associated with Macfarlanes any longer as what they are doing is very immoral. I am very happy that Eleanor is wrote this as it is important to know who societies are associating themselves with. I understand that the debating society (of which i am a member) should do more to distance themselves from the firm. Perhaps they should issue a statement condemning the macfarlanes lawfirm.

Good work eleanor

34. Kirsty

Rim, as a member of the Debating Society also, I obviously do not condone any sort of toxic dumping. However, I am not sure what we are meant to be offering a statement condemning. MacFarlanes are merely representing a company that may have engaged in it, allowing it the legal representation all should be entitled to. I therefore feel we, nor they, can be reproached for this point alone. If there has been illegality in the way they have conducted their case then this is of course a serious issue, but as many have stated we are not yet to know if these have substance. Of course, when a case is proven (or at least the facts become clearer) there will be a lot of thought put into whether they continue as sponsor of CUDS events. However, given the generosity MacFarlanes has shown us in the past, I do not think it unreasonable for our President to pause before jumping on the bandwagon. However, be assured we do not have unconditional ties with the firm, as I feel has been made clear repeatedly in this forum.

On the point of bullying, I hope none of us have given the impression of a personal grudge against the writer – most of our criticism has been aimed at one of the other posters in particular, and the feeling seems to be mutual!! With regard to Eleanor, we simply feel that we have been criticised for something that is a) out of our control, and b) unfairly singled out given the involvement of MacFarlanes in other societies and University activities.

We are a debating society – we are therefore deeply committed to freedom of speech, and as an extension of that the freedom of the press. This includes the Gair Rhydd, and we have no problem with this information being bought to our attention – I for one am glad to know this, as I wasn’t aware of it before. I simply feel that perhaps before people rush to judgment against CUDS in general, or Sam Knight in particular, they could consider how much we could reasonably be expected to know, and that generally, its a good idea to work on the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

35. Jamie

James 2 – it does indicate a lack of newsworthy events happening, you’re right, and it is difficult for the news team some weeks. But that’s not an excuse for reporting rubbish or exaggerating things. (Note – I don’t think this story is rubbish, just exaggerated.)

36. James 2

I think that it’s not the factual content of Eleanor’s piece that is provocative. Journalism is not about reporting facts, that is the job of encyclopaedists. The journalist chooses facts, interprets them and then reports on the resultant interpretation.

When a piece is published, it is not just because it is factual, it is because it is interesting. The above story is factually interesting in that the case it reports on is so. The link to the debating society is factually uninteresting, the fact that it has been reported implies that the link has been interpreted in an interesting way, i.e. that CUDS is in someway guilty of some oversight, or actual wrongdoing. This is provocative and invites defense, or at least clarification.

37. Matthew

And in fact more seriously than just implying that CUDS is guilty of something, it seems to imply that Sam is guilty of some wrongdoing. We’re a big society and can weather people saying stuff about as a whole, but it seems pretty unfair to target one person.

38. Rachelle

I’m not a member of CUDS nor did I go to the debate but this article seems pointless.

Firstly, the case is unproven and secondly the relationship between sponsered and the sponser is clearly both distant and hierarchical. How were they supposed to know and, if they did, do anything about it?

I’m sure that IF they were convicted Sam would see it as one more important issue to try and tackle in his union position, but that’s autonomous to his role in CUDS.

And the idea that the debate club are obliged to comment just because they enjoy commenting on other things is absurd.

This is a badly researched,unfair and defamatory article.

39. Rachelle

Also, I don’t get how Sam is singled out. I know he’s supposed to know/care more about the environment but why not a law student because they’re supposed to know/care about the justice system and what others are doing? Or Eddy, because some people (ie:not me) have criticised his election techniques and could there be a sleazy link there (I don’t think there is, but it’s not hard to imagine Eleanor making one after the random references to Sam)

And when I re-read the article it was even more obvious that Eddy would take action next year if it was in the best interests of the society, surely that’s the most he can do? He can’t go get the stuff out of the river? Or give the money back? Or write a letter of apology to all those affected? All Eddy was doing was the JUST thing in that leaving it until they are proven guilty or innocent.

40. Sam

I’m Sam Knight the Ethical and Environmental Officer mentioned in this article. Firstly I’d like to say that I first found out about this story 10 minutes ago from a fellow member of the society, hence my “silence” on the subject.

Gair Rhydd’s “news team” have tried contacting me on my old phone. A phone that has not been in use since December. Many of my colleagues at the union have my new number, my email address and can still contact me on Facebook. None of these were used in attempting to contact me. I don’t believe enough of an effort was made to justify my association to this article.

On the actual issue itself again I knew nothing until 10 minutes ago. I am not nor ever have been part of the Debating executive or in any position of authority on the sponsorship deals.

From what I know I would make this judgment. As the Ethical officer I believe that you are innocent until proven guilty. If McFarlanes are found to be guilty I have every faith that the society would not renew their sponsorship without any intervention from myself.

I do not believe the Debating Society have participated in any wrong doing and should not be judged from past deals and should only be judged on their future actions with McFarlanes following a verdict.

I am an approachable executive member of the union and as such, any student may contact me samknight87@gmail.com

41. Jamie

I genuinely don’t think there’s any malice in the reporting. It’s been handled clumsily and has unfortunately made it seem as if the Debating Society/its members/Sam are at fault.

42. Thomas Carroll

Bet the Debating Society secretly love the fact that they’ve now got so much to argue about on here though…

43. Sarah McLeod

Wow this article sucks. Why can’t Gair rhydd actually write something truthful and honest. The quotes are quite blatently made up, noone even speaks like that. Does anyone actually believe the debating society would have said these things. Nah!!! Get a life Gair Rhydd or Gay Ride or whatever. Its cos you are useless and unwanted and your egos will shrink when you find that noone is reading your crap over the summer because people have lives and you don’t. go shag a sheep.

44. sarah M

Seeing as you are going to apolgise and correct your mistakes I take back the above

45. Ceri

Sarah M, I don’t usually comment on articles, but I find your post so pointless and offensive that I felt it had to be done. What you are saying is hugely insulting to the editorial team who spent a ridiculous amount of hours putting this paper together. If you don’t enjoy the content, then simply don’t waste your precious time commenting on or reading the paper. Aside from sounding like you’re still at primary school, you’re post is completely pointless in what is a valid debate. If you’re going to comment in future, then please muster up some debating skills.

46. GriffinUK

Firstly – I found it hilarious when I logged in and saw that the Gair Rhydd page said “Sarah Mcleod – Debating Society’s Toxic Asset”. Secondly – this has been a comprehensive coverage on the messageboard. Well done. I love that the Gair Rhydd will attack when there are signs of scandal – re: the whole vice chancellor being loaded fiasco. Thats just dandy. However, this article was good in that it was saying “Macfarlanes may or may not be naughty – SCANDAL” but awful in that it followed on to suggest that debating society are also involved – when they’re not hunting swans, clubbing seals or being argumentative anti-semitic terrorist sympathisers. Eleanor – its good that you covered a contentious issue (thats kind of what you’re meant to do), but with the implication that CUDS are somehow bad people for accepting funding from them, and failing to mention other societies who do – well, thats just not cricket. And it goes without saying that James is an utter quim.

47. jonathan Bird

Excuse me the Society didn’t KNOWN about it. I beg to differ. I messaged most of the exec when I heard about it. It is unfortunate that too little attention was paid. Although all students have a lot on there plates. The Moral of this story is perhaps, no-one is ethically squeaky clean. If the firm is found guilty we shall known, if not they shall be found not guilty I’m sure Law students known that doesn’t mean innocent.

48. Matthew

Jonathan, the point about ‘knowing’ or not is that there is no way anyone in CUDS could have known anything BEFORE it happened – which is when the funding and sponsorship were accepted. The point still stands – there is no way to tell what someone/company/group of people may do in the future.

49. Kerry

Jonathon, you did indeed message me (I don’t recall who else) with the article, of which I was already aware. The reason I didn’t think it important to tell anyone is that the article is all ifs buts and maybes. I did not nor do I expect articles such as the above to be written on such flimsy suggestions, one cannot at this stage even describe them as facts. So even a knowledge of the issues existance should not warrant an in depth knowledge at present, although this will change in due course with the proceedings.

50. jonathan

Yes that point stands, however it wasn’t the one made. Jamie two days ago “the president didn’t know which clears Them.” You and others in the soc were told about it. I also I’m capable I should have nagged the exec to at least discuss it. Then we would have had a better statement and policy. As it was when GR heard the Documentary and asked about it, we were caught napping.

Ps who are the other socities which have links to Macfarnes?

51. jonathan Bird

The case so far they toke a man from a shack in a shanty town on a all business class flight, to a five star hotel on the other side of Africa. I don’t know about Law but in Psychology just doing that would be considered an unethical inducement to participate. Given his level of poverty. Two days of interviewing the name of the Lawer. Apart from the allegations of money bribes, quite a lot of solid facts.

52. Kerry

Jonathon, that is for the court to decide. And as the bbc article notes, there were counter alegations of extortion and chaning evidence on the behalf of the claiments, on which the person in question was asked to comment. I’m not for a minute suggesting that such an action legitimates anything, but rather that such facts are important and left out of the above article. So the only fact present, which is indisputed, is that someone was flown to a different country to be interviewed, it is for the court and no one else to decide whether that was legitimate.

53. jonathan

The firm has the legitimate forum of the court to make its case and question wittnesses. The High court has slapped an injuction on Macfarlanes. It is that a light matter, I think not. Everyone has a right to make ethical judgements. Courts only have a monoploy on legal sanctions. I believe and assert what they have done and admitted doing is unethical. The power imbalance involved in a poor illiterate man in such a situation alone without advice or support, needs little elabouration.

54. Kathy

Jonathan – just to clarify, you messaged some members of the society and expected them to pass the message on, which after seeing it as a non-issue they did not. Neither the society Chair, the President or the Vice President recieved this e-mail and as these are the people who the Gair Rhydd would contact to talk about a press issue and not ordinary members I fail to see how you claim to have effectively warned us of this issue being told to the Gair Rhydd.

55. Jonathan

Ok, my. I sent it to ex-chair, president etc and current members of the exec. Although I wasn’t told about the elections or the result. I thought Ed, Kerry or Dee would be able to see how serious this was and pass it on. My assement proved to be right, it was not non-issue. GR printed a story, some damage done. Kate the pres is not a FB friend of mine. I don’t know who the other office holders are. see Debsoc wall for more

56. Kerry

Jonathon, again, I saw the article and I did not nor do I now consider it a serious issue that needed to be discussed further within the society, although this may well change with any verdict of the future. And whilst it is an issue it is one that has very little at all to do with the debating society, as has been made explicitly clear in the above comments, thus the article is atbest unfair in its depiction of the role of the society in this issue.

57. Jonathan

I think it best to discuss this inhouse on the deb soc wall.

58. James

Ive done a bit of investigation into the debating society and I have been speaking to many of my friends who have been former members as well. I wasn’t surprised to know that the debating society has been at the centre of much controversy. The list is quiet extensive such as support of Hamas and excluding Jewish students from debates or proposing to ban on kosher food (surprise surprise Dee was the lead advocate) or Eddy’s dodgy campaign practices or discriminating against the debating society’s very own members a few years ago and now this issue of mcfarlanes. Anyone can see that the debating society has a dodgy track record which is only exacerbated by their constant arguing and protest to any criticism.

I am particularly disturbed by the comments made by people are undoubtedly debating society members. You all are very quick to lash out at someone who criticizes them and have been very cruel in your choice of words. I don’t feel like i really need to respond to this as this only a testament to what bullied you guys actually are. All i did was comment on the experiences I have had with the debating society at a few of your events. Yes Dee I know very well what type of person you are. Your resort to cheap comebacks and are extremely arrogant when it comes to others raising concerns about the way you run the society. Clearly you have issue with people questioning your motives and this is very indicitve of someone who knows they are in the wrong. A great deal of horrible people in history have acted the same way when it came to questioning their motives. I merely asked you about why held an event that concerned Jewish students on a Saturday. Your replied by spewing what can only be deemed as hatred towards religious practices. You say that I have been acting in a bad way when I commented on you but you had said that you don’t give a damn about anyones religious practices regardless of whether they are muslim or jewish or Christian. Such sentiments should be dealt with by higher authorities and I only held my tongue as the event was generally very good albeit clearly biased.

In regards to mcfarlanes: I didn’t not realize that the debating society were aware of the allegations and yet did nothing. Thanks for pointing this out mr. Jonathan. This news in my opinion really sheds a light on the charater of the debating society and its members. To do nothing and to say nothing makes you very much implicit in supporting heinous tactics applied by mcfarlanes. Debating societies indifference to the suffering is something we should really be looking into. The union should not standing by on this. What i suggest is that the union now look into the practices of the debating society and a few of their members I have mentioned and the article has mentioned. This clearly falls within the university guidelines concering acceptable behaviour. However, with the new exec rolling in i find this doubtful. No doubt eddy will show all possible favouritism to the debating society (apparently that is his MO). However, after discussing this issue with friends and people who agree with me it might be a good idea for a group of us to make a formal complaint to the university. I would really regret doing anything of the such but there needs to be great amount of care taken that the debating society are monitored in their events and their affiliations. It is also important that they no longer have this blank cheque that they have been enjoying.

I understand that the debating society have made it their mission to call me names and ridicule me but I for one think this only shows their guilt.

59. Kathy

James – As society chair for 2009/10 year I would be interested to further discuss your views on the alleged tarring of all debate members with the brush of accusations of corruption, deceit and lies. If you would like to make a complaint then feel free but I assure you that it will come to nothing as all the accusations you have levied at us are clearly incorrect on further and proper investigation.

If the debating society were really that inherently corrupt do you think we would have been as successful as we are in providing a welcoming and friendly place for students to enjoy their time at university?

This is what we are about, primarily to enjoy ourselves and share a love of debate; that is always looking at issues from both sides which is clearly something you are blind to.

I take personal offence at your accusations against the society and would be happy to discuss these with you personally if you wish.

60. James

also – i challange the union to say that it is or not okay for any society to associate themselves with the likes of people who sympathize with terrorists, antsemetics, people who commit genocide, corporations who dump toxic waste in tthe laps of the poor, or any such evil.

you all were vocal when it comes to the university inverstment in israel. why so quiet now?

61. James

kathy – i have no issue with all debating society members or your ability to function as a society. I dont think you are all bad people. i jst think some of you are bullies and are hypocrates. I very well aware how debating works ive been to you events. I still dont think it should be an option to give anyone a platform to advocate the support for a terrorist group. I also think that your members should adhere to the university code of conduct. I also think that if you are to have debates they shouldnt be biased. I also think that as people who are essentially extensions of the union, you should represent the morality of the students of this unviersity. I also think it is not asking too much of you guys to condem bad things rather than waiting for this issue to die out so you dont have to cancel you lucrative agreement with mcfarlanes who are clearly guilty of bad things regardless of how legal or illegal it is.

62. Kerry

James, alot of what you have said is rathr bizzare for a few reasons. The most important one I feel is this ongoing anti semitism shenanigans, which can quite easily be disproved by the fact that there were Jewish speakers in the debate, they even said they were specifically Jewish. When organising the event we asked the Israeli embassy to send a speaker, they didn’t but not because it was a Friday, which they had no problem with, but because they feared the audience would be hostile.

With regards to the Kosher/Halal debate, id I remember correctly the Union asked us to run it. Furthermore that we hold a debate does not tie us to a belief in one side of that debate, thus whilst the society may hold a debate about the legitimacty of negotiating with Hams, that is not to say that we believe that it should or shouldn’t and indeed no one from Cardiff University was involved in speaking in that debate. As for blasting Dee for being on a side of a debate, we get randomly assigned sides, you don’t choose, thus it was mere chance that Dee was arguing against Kosher and Halal foods, and he could have just as easily been arguing against banning it. Also he was not a lead advocate, there were for of us, as per format.

Furthermore on our awareness of ‘what is going on’ which is as yet uncertain in the extreme and our lack of action, what would yuo like us to do? Is it honestly the case that if any body, company or any other entity are accused, not convicted, of bribery or whatever else that every part of the union should cut off links from it?

The most offensive comment is that we have in some ways discriminated against our own members, in the past year I have been the equity officer for the society, and I have had literally nothing to deal with. We are an inclusive society, and do a great deal to be so, which is why we contact every society in the Union relevant to any debate we are doing.

I have asked a few questions in this piece, and I apologise for its length, however James, I would very much like some answers to the points raised.

63. james

what would you like us to do? – maybe not try to hope this goes away and say that you wont do business with the likes of mcfarlanes.

union should cut off links from it? – yes

the debates:

banning kosher food should never be an ssue to discuss. how do u think that makes minority jewish students feels?

Hamas should never be debated as they are as you must agree anti semitic akin to the bnp and their racist policies. we dont give the bnp a platform why give it to antisemetic speakers from palestinian solidarity or anyoen for that matter.

Dee – i pointed out his side and his excitement to debate the topic as to illustrate his eagerness to bash certain groups.

64. Kerry

James, at no point has anyone said anything other than we are going to see what the outcome of the trial is. And you suggestion that the Union should cut of links is odd, here is the opening line of what such a letter would look like,

Dear Sir/Madam, It has come to our attention that someone, somewhere has accused you of improper conduct. Whilst we realise that these are not proven and could indeed be baseless we wish to terminate our dealing with you.

It wasn’t just banning Kosher food it was Halal as well, and whilst I appreciate it being possibly uncomfortable (although no one did or has since raised such issues with me or anyone about it) I for one stand openly and proudly for free speech. This does not mean giving anyone a platform but addressing pressing issues even if they touch on controversy, were we to shy away from such serious issues I do not believe we would be doing our job, and to do so would be a disserivce to the student population, who have shown their support for us by turning up to our public debates.

On Dee again, he wouldn’t, nor would anyone be any good if he didn’t sound like he supported his argument. Think about it, as quite a devout Muslim do you really think he believed inwhat he was arguing about banning Halal foods?

65. George

Dear James

As treasurer of the debating society, I would like to ask where exactly your “blank cheque” allegation is coming from. My knowledge of the accounts leads me to believe that my predecessor and I must have mislaid this item some time ago as things have been very tight financially with us over the last few years and we have never seen any evidence of undue favoritism.

The Union has been very strict with our requests for money and rightly so too, and we have certainly not had any more money than any society in the University is able to obtain through the proper channels.

If you should happen to come across our “blank cheque” then we would be very grateful if you could forward it to us as we would be very interested in find out about such a mysterious item.

Thank you for your help.

George

66. George

Dear James

As treasurer of the debating society, I would like to ask where exactly your “blank cheque” allegation is coming from. My knowledge of the accounts leads me to believe that my predecessor and I must have mislaid this item some time ago as things have been very tight financially with us over the last few years and we have never seen any evidence of undue favoritism. The Union has been very strict with our requests for money and rightly so too, and we have certainly not had any more money than any society in the University is able to obtain through the proper channels. I you should happen to come across our “blank cheque” then we would be very grateful if you could forward it to us as we would be very interested in find out about such a mysterious item. Thank you for your help.

George

67. rhi

george. i think he meant blank cheque as in cart blanche not the literal sense. thus perhaps he meant that the debating society has some sort of freedom and autonomy that others do not enjoy.

on the main issue. I am am not entirely sure macfarlans have actually done anything wrong. being a future lawyer i understand that this is how lawyers generally operate. aslong as it is within the confines of the law. an injunction would be given if the excercise of the right the interview would exceedingly and unduelly change the balance of fairness. its one of these subjective areas of law which the courts manipulate by (by giving and taking) in order to create balance.

i think this is an issue that it complex and legal and beyond the understanding of most of us and particularly eleanor. some more information would have been nice.

68. rhi

I apologize eleanor – i mean no disrespect at the end. I also want to add that this is more of a case of a article written with poor understanding than a malicious attempt to hurt the debating society.

I dont really want to comment on James, but I think he is going a bit too far to attempt to prove a tenuous point that isnt very good.

69. James

“I would have opinions but I’m not willing to say what they are. We would lose a massive amount of money and they have been fantastic sponsors”. She wishes to retract this comment.”

Feeling a bit silly now?

70. Kerry

Vicky denies having said that and that she has been misquoted, and I am inclined to believe her. I see you have now stopped saying silly and clearly incorrect things about how we operate and abot our members, particualrly seeing as your comments targetting D show you really don’t understand this whole debating thing. thanks.

71. George

Rhi,

Thanks for your intresting comments on the main issue, you have a point.

Just to clarify to James though my literal blank cheque comment was asking him to prove how we get special treatment, but i would still like to see such a thing if it existed.

Thanks

George

72. David

Okay, I want to deal with all of the big old ball of crazy that you have said james, but its 1 in the morning and i am off to the gym at 8

so Firstly {quote} what would you like us to do? – maybe not try to hope this goes away and say that you wont do business with the likes of mcfarlanes.{quote} I love this idea, absolutely terrific, on very little evidence, and with no verdict on what macfarlenes have done, you want the debate society to condemn them. First thing that comes to mind is innocent until proven guilty, I mean i could accuse you of being a bigoted imbicile and get everyone to treat you as such and i would have just as much evidence as you do against macfarlanes. In fact, I am sure the debate soc would do this if you admit to the whole world you are a moron.

union should cut off links from it? – yes Just as good as plan as above but with added nose cutting off to spite face. Once again, make the same deal, you cut your nose of and the union will cut of its.

{quote} banning kosher food should never be an ssue to discuss. how do u think that makes minority jewish students feels? {/quote}

Kerry already dealt quite well with this, but i wonder, if talking about food upsets you what else does, can we debate whether puppys are better than kittens, or do we need to worry whether we hurt those poor ikkle animals feelings. I think in your world the only debate that we should have would be whether the world is super duper or wonderful.

[quote] Hamas should never be debated as they are as you must agree anti semitic akin to the bnp and their racist policies. we dont give the bnp a platform why give it to antisemetic speakers from palestinian solidarity or anyoen for that matter. [/quote] Firstly, i am not sure that Al Haniyeh was there that week, he might have been hiding in Gaza, along with other members of hamas. You know, those people that were bombed in january. Next up, whether to talk about things get them out in the open and show why certain viewpoints are ridiculus vs hide it under the carpet, dont show the views as being ridiculus and allow people to think those views. Take for example person A, who thinks that Hamas are justified in targeting civillians. Can i talk to him? can i tell him why his views are stupid? Can i show him he’s wrong? No, do i hear you cry? That’s different? well, its not really. Debating is about exposing ideas and clashing with them showing where ideas fail, the people in the debate did not necessarily hold the views they expressed but they expressed them to allow them to combat with other ideas. And lastly about that debate, It wasn’t about whether Hamas are good/bad, its about whether you should deal with people that you dont like in order to get peace or whether you can not deal with them at all. Should we negotiate with kim jong il? Maybe/maybe not, but it is an issue that needs to be talked about.

[quote] Yes Dee I know very well what type of person you are. Your resort to cheap comebacks and are extremely arrogant when it comes to others raising concerns about the way you run the society. Clearly you have issue with people questioning your motives and this is very indicitve of someone who knows they are in the wrong[/quote]

Cheap comebacks are the best way of dealing with people like you. If we try and engage with your comments, firstly we risk damage to our own intellects , and then you will ignore the issues at hand and call us antisemites. Or we could just insult you, which achieves the same thing but much quicker. I dont really feel I need to defend Dee that much, as his character will withstand anything you could throw at him. But apart from graciously losing to me many times in debate, he has bought me drinks, been a wingman and a good friend, maybe you find him arrogant because you are too busy accusing him of wanting to see israel burn.

73. jonathan Bird

I’m a member of Debsoc and I like Dee and most of the others. However I can’t understand why my friends can’t understand how serious this is. It is natural to believe authority figures and a large legal firm has such. Also this is well outside their field of experience. I don’t think they are bad people. What the firm has admitted to is bad enough. court is the place to cross examine people. Look if the British, American army put a hood over this mans head lead him around spun him basic totally disorinated his whole frame of reference for hours. And then questioned him, what would this treatment be called? torture. Take a illiterate man ignorant of his rights, with inducements 5*star hotel Luxury flights. You all may be unfamilar with culture shock. However in internation travel and international institutions it is know to be powerfull and often debilating. I had it myself when first traveling in the middle east. In scientific terms it is a dissociative disorder, things feel unreal. The person loses much of their will and becomes weak. He or she can be persuaded to things more easily. The claimant had never left his home city let alone his country, it must have been like a alien abduction. They couldn’t question him in his own enviroment why? human rights lawers do it all the time. This is not just my opinion informed by Psychology and my own and others experience. The High court found agianst them. it was not legitimate according to the Judge. Macfarlanes is now bound not to contact 30,000 people. As reported this is unpresidented. A large and certainly previously respectable firm, treated like this.

74. jonathan Bird

“injunction would be given if the excercise of the right the interview would exceedingly and unduelly change the balance of fairness” oh being unfair yes that is the whole point. Being unfair to poor people who have been poisened with Hydrogen Cynide, two metric tonnes of it. Look at the photography. This is not an allegation the shipping company has caved in and admitted it was toxic. If this had happend in Europe corperate homocide charges would investigated. However nasty things happen in Africa to Africans. I really think we should examine hearts and souls.

75. jonathan Bird

As regards the Jewish issue. Unwitting discrimination is still discrimination. Two Jewish students toke part. However two synagoges were exclued. Do you really think the Liberal or the Orthodox shuls would organise transport and a political activity like this on the night of shabbat. I fully understand the Israeli embassy and Jsoc doubts. Some members of the audience were very hostile. If fact two of them advocated suicide bombing and other in discriminate acts of violence. They were not members of Debsoc, I must add nor were they Muslim. Menbers of Isoc behave impecably.

76. jonathan Bird

If you really want to make an official complaint. (I don’t advise you or advise you not to) It is your right. You nothing to fear regarding the president elect. An independent committee I think it is call the council would deal with it. I don’t think he is as Machievallan as he has been made out to be. He is a straight forward honourable bloke in my opinion.

77. Matthew

OK a few things.

1 – we’re putting the Hamas debate to rest now. There were equal numbers of equal speakers on both sides. Also, because speakers were coming from London they only time they could do it was the weekend, and the only night we could get the venue was a Friday. What is malicious about that? Should we instead not run the event? Like Dee said, plenty of Jewish students said they would be happy to come. We can’t accommodate everyone all the time.

2 – James I think we are now at the point where I am considering taking an official complaint against you. You are accusing me and my friends of being all kinds of horrible things, which frankly we are not. You have an advantage over us in that we are in the open, while you are just a name on this website. Come forward and identify yourself if you believe everything you’ve said.

3 – If we were to cut off links to MacFarlanes at this point it would be the same as a school firing a teacher accused of paedophilia but without a shred of proof other than some stories in a newspaper.

4 – We believe in the legal system. We are sorry that others do not appear to. I suggest we make no further comment on the issue until the trial is ccompleted.

78. George

Matthew

I would like to say hear hear to point 4, let this be the end until we have more evidence to continue this discussion.

George

79. Kirsty

So I know this is meant to be done with for now, but I just have to say shame on the Gair Rhydd – not for the article, which I dont see as malicious – but for the bit that now comes after it.

You can only ‘retract’ something you have actually said. I know I sound really anal, arguing over semantics, but there is no retraction required in Vicky’s case. She says she did not say what she is quoted as. I therefore hope that I don’t overstep the mark when I presume that she makes no apology (and ‘retraction’ usually means you admit you said something you shouldn’t have) for something she did not say. The Gair Rhydd’s smug and backhanded way of admitting it fucked up is kinda irritating.

80. James

Jonathan – i am glad I am not the only one who sees this the same way. I appreciate your point about discrimination and i concur that the audience was highly hostile. I very much beleive that there is an anti-semetic undertone in the student population and the debating society relished the opportunity to exploit it. When you completely exclude an entire population from a discussion on their future you are excluding them from having a say in their own life. this is my main contention with the debating society events. David and a few others dont seem to understand that by continuing to bash a certain population is simply wrong. To give them a blank cheque to do this sort of activity is very dangerous and it alienates all jewish students. I worry that the debating society will now take advantage of having a member in office and may now consider themselves entitled to being more controversial and more discriminatory. I wanted to take the time to clarify another thing. Why do we not give a platform to the BNP? it is because they preach racism and hate. if another group does the same thing to israelis even if they are concentrated elsewhere why should they be allowed a platform? isnt this a double standard? the Palestinian solidarity people quiet literally preach antisemitism so why l give them a voice? they firstly should be purged from our union and secondly their friends shouldnt be asking them to debate at highly publicised events.

Macfarlanes issue is rather troubling now as the society’s spokes people are still not accepting a few issues. macfarlanes admit to the FACT that they flew this chap over and treated him like royalty and questioned him. Yes i think they may be allowed to interview people and I am sure that it isnt technically illegal. but when u take an illeterate man from poverty and put him in the lap of luxory and promise him gems as long as he say certain things a certain way well that is coercion. THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO THIS. we all accept that such tactics are immoral. they are immoral because mcfarlanes are using dirty tricks to hide the guilt of people who have killed and mamed so many other impoverished people. Jonathan you are correct courts do not havea monoply over moral judgements and just because they beleive it to be legal (clearly no – see injunction for reference) does not mean that we are so innept that we cant see that something is morally incorrect.

David. just a few things. cheap comebacks are the tools of the ignorant.

Matthew. I dont think anything I have said is particularly offensive. What is offensive is the nonchalance of the debating society regarding things like the sufffering of people, discrimination. Though in retrospect I do regret some of the personal attacks I have made out of outrage. nonethelss I think everything I have said has been a fair comment. Also, I am not the one who has been lashing out at others for having an opinion. So far your spokes people have been insulting, offensive, derrgotory, stubborn and repressive bullies. I merely want to have a say, but i have been pressured by you guys since my first post.

81. Sarah M

To Ceri, yes you are right, my comments were not sophistacated I had PMT and too much chocolate. but nevertheless my point about Gair Rhydd is that if yuo are going to write something get proper info and although yuo may have spent lots of time on this article it is highly offensive to anyone who knows anything about the debating society to suggest in the article what you do. In the same way you are insulted by ‘childish’ comments so am I by your editorial teams accusations. As for all the other people on here trying to find make the debating society look bad then come forward, tell me your names and if possible your addresses. HAHAHAHAHA PS, I can pick locks ;)

82. James

just to re-itterate.

JUST BECAUSE A COURT DOESNT FIND YOU GUILTY OF SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE SOMETHING WRONG.

this whole issue of of innocent until proven guilty thing that sooo many of you cling to really doesnt matter. illegeal or not it IS wrong. Sam as ethical officer this should be clear to you. a great deal of companies who act immorally around the world are condemned even without a court judgment because simple human morality dictates that they are bad people. I am sure you as ethical officer can give us countless examples of greedy corporations who exploit the poor and yet arent charged witha crime. im thinking of nestle in africa..

83. Sarah M

James you are a fuckwit

84. James

sarah m – what are u going to do? are u the debating societies goon then? I feel i should be worried now

85. Sarah M

James – I accuse you of crimes against humanity. I’m not going to wait for the innocent until proven guilty… I’m going to just hang you in Sweden

86. Sarah M

Who the hell uses the word GOON. and no I am not a member of the debating society.

87. Kirsty

James – firstly I would like to address the fact that being anti-Isreali defence policy is not to be anti-Semitic; although the two can sometimes be found together, some have no problem with Jews per se, and rather with settlement policy etc. This isnt the place to discuss my own views, but conflating the two is not helpful, and doesn’t do justice to people who disagree with your views.

Secondly, it is not controversial or discriminatory to discuss issues such as Hala/Kosher foods – the fact that there have even been legal changes in some Scandanavian countries and the attendance at the even shows that this IS an issue which people are discussing, and in which there are two legimiate sides, and I would completely condemn the view you seem to have that one side should be banned from publicly debating their opinions because you decide everyone who doesnt agree with you is somehoiw racist.

As for the BNP, although this is not the view of the NUS, I feel that we should offer a platform to all when they speak within the confines of the law. Hearing these (addmitedly vile) sentiments is the only way that we can show people what the BNP really stand for, and expose them to the ridicule they deserve.

88. Selvey

“Just because a court doesn’t find you guilty doesn’t mean you have not done something wrong.”

This is intriguing. Therefore everyone accused of anything must be guilty every time they are accused, no?

Would it have been ethical of Macfarlanes to put this gentleman or whoever in a specially built shanty town whilst all of their lawyers stayed in 5* accommodation? No.

If this were the case, the moaning would be something along the lines of “Macfarlanes treat Africans unjustly, therefore Debating Society are evil for accepting money from them beforehand.”

The court case will deal with the facts – i.e. was this gentleman bribed or not? e.t.c – they are still innocent until proven guilty for this.

The analogy drawn to sensory overload used in torture cannot stand, because that is an example unjust treatment (unless every member of the army runs around in circles with bags over their heads).

89. Edward

“this whole issue of of innocent until proven guilty thing that sooo many of you cling to really doesnt matter.”

Haha, I do love this. So now DebSoc is being slammed for clinging on desparately to such tired, old-fashioned ideas as rule of law, the criminal justice system and the concept of innocence until proven guilty. (i.e. did bribery actually happen? Oh well they’ve been accused of it, so obviously DebSoc must disassociate from Macfarlanes immediately. That makes perfect sense. And we can psycho-analyse the situation all we like, but that doesn’t mean that it actually happened.)

This is getting boring now. This discussion can be had again once the verdict comes through, and we actually know whether or not Macfarlanes are guilty of any unethical conduct.

Until then, we’re all just speculating in areas that we admittedly know nothing about. And that goes to everyone, including James and Jonathan.

90. Jamie

“The Gair Rhydd’s smug and backhanded way of admitting it fucked up is kinda irritating.”

Kirsty, I’m not really sure what you mean by this. If you meant my comments then that’s a personal view and not any official comment from the newspaper.

91. Edward

Jamie, given the rest of her post, I think Kirsty was referring to the bold statement underneath the article, about Vicky “wanting to retract” the quote. When in fact, she doesn’t want to “retract”, as that would imply that she said in the first place. In actuality, she’s maintaining that she didn’t say that quote at all.

Don’t think there’s a distinction? Our new friend James certainly did, as he took the gair rhydd’s wording to mean precisely that (with his question: “Feeling a bit silly now?”) in post #69.

That bold statement is an official statement from the gair rhydd, and I don’t think it accurately reflects Vicky’s dispute at all.

92. Dee

Dear James,

I’ve at my wits end when it comes to you now and I am rather tired of having to defend myself against your unfounded accusations. I am particularly perturbed by you insinuation regarding Ed Carey, Sam Knight and others. These are upstanding people of the highest calibre and they are truly honourable. Feel free to ask around about us, I am sure you will hear no bad things.

I do urge you to stop defaming us on this public forum as it paints a horrible picture of us that is based in merely your own opinion without and basis or validation. If you do have any issue with us at a personal level please feel free to contact us individually. This forum is not your personal medium to vent your anger or grievances but rather it is here to discuss the topic at hand. Do us a favour and stop making personal and hateful comments about people and stick to the issue if you can. Though I must say the issue is rather exhausted at this point and I don’t see much more a debate to come out of them.

I will make myself available to talk to you if you like and perhaps convince you that I am not some raging racist faciist. This would also give me the opportunity to explain to you in detail how debating and debating societies work and their important purpose. You may contact me at: ghazisd@hotmail.com or 07908680769 Ed Carey can be reached at: careyed@cardiff.ac.uk Sam Knight: samknight87@gmail.com

if you want to go down an official route please contact any of the debating society executive, particularly Ed Mason who serves as the society’s equity officer: masones@cardiff.ac.uk

Alternatively, the societies and post graduate officer of the Union, Becca Rees can deal with your grievances in her official capacity and I am sure she would be very receptive to you: reesr8@cardiff.ac.uk

I hope you find a more conducive way to deal with your issues with us than just going on about our so called failings in the public forums. I hope that after speaking to us or making a formal complaint you will see that we are not the bigoted or horrible people you think.

I look forward to hearing from you.

D.

93. Eddy

Hi James, please do submit your complaints, I promise it will be dealt with in the way it deserves.

Personally, I really wonder if you’re for real. If you’re doing this for kicks then I pity your life. If you are genuine then you simply must submit this complaint. For someone who feels as strongly as you do, it would be irresponsible not to.

94. jonathan Bird

Well Ed argue for kicks don’t we? I am sympathic to some of what James says. I think having the Hamas debate on Friday was a mistake and wrong. I belive it was late in the day unavoidable. However I don’t think we were anyway near apolgetic enough. Hence James perception of arrogance. I agree with you Kirsty Anti-semitism and legitimate critism of Israel’s policies have been conflated sometimes. Menarkin Begin was nortorious for doing so. Yet the president of the PSS said there shouldn’t be a Jewish Soc in a university- the dictionary defination of anti-semitism. I think the use of smoke screen shells in Gaza was capably negligent. Unethical because phosphor is really unpleasent suff. I Washington correspondent of the Jerusalem Post (the Israeli equ of the Telegraph) not a left wing anti-zionist, attacked that decision. Allthough, it is not illegal under the conventional arms convention. Because it is incapable of use as a practical anti-personel weapon. It is exclued from restricted incengeriy devices like tracer bullets. However the extreme on the other side does it in riddicously breathtaking way.I saw a cartoon which showed a Jew with ugly hooked features, with an openning skull full of selectons. This girl attached it to her face book profile. She is a student here welsh and ordinary. I said to her have a look at it don’t you think it’s racist. Since that time she has osstrocised me and forced me out of most meetings of a student society. Guess what she said I was saying critisim of Israel is anti-semitic. The group she joined was purged by facebook for advocating suicide bombing and AS. Quite an achivement! facebook is nortorious for tolerating apauling content.

95. jonathan Bird

ONE hundred! don’t debs go on lol!

96. Jamie

Ah, thanks Edward, hadn’t actually seen that.

97. Kojak

Batman = Bruce Wayne Superman = Clark Kent Jonathan = James

Mate, get a life (but just one of them).

98. Jonathan

Ok I like that. Clark Kent decent bloke and hero. You really are flattering me, thanks. However, I just want to be able to I do what I think is right rather than say “I was only obeying orders”.

99. Jonathan

Before some joker says I’m call Debs Nazis. I will clarify there is more to ehtics than conformity to normative sanctions. I firmly hold be they Profesional codes, Laws or even group dynmaics.

100. Selvey

I don’t even know what you’re saying.

101. Jonathan

Just I think it is important in Life to stand fast to your principles. If some is vegitirian, pacifist or whatever. People disagree and a few make discussing morals personal. However I believe we should all understand other points of view and make our views known. I empathise with Mr Bou, I think he was treated very badly by Macfarlanes. To me that is what motivates me to tell the Soc about it. We ignored the situation and now we look bad. We can now say the law is only significant thing and we will look worst. I can easily imagine assorted greens and left wingers picketting Cardiff IV. Well the majority will decided, all tho at first no one would discuss it.

102. James 2

Jonathan, you do not have any principles. What you have is an inferiority complex. I do not believe for a second that you really feel that CUDS’ sponsorship by Macfarlanes is an issue worthy of serious consideration, but rather an opportunity to express the vitriol which they arouse in you. You are not stupid, of that I am sure; you have simply shown a great deal of naivety in allying yourself to an indefencible position as a foundation for assault, and in allowing your pride to overrule your judgement and hence adhering to that alliance.

Let us not pretend that what you are expressing here is motivated by a great empathy with the plight of poor Mr Bou. That is to patronise not only Mr Bou, but anyone who may chance to read this page. If it were so, surely that is the context in which you would have framed your debate, rather than that in which you did: one in which CUDS are to be reviled for their rejection of moral responsibility.

If your point turns out to be valid, it shall be by accident rather than design. Your views are offensive to those who support CUDS, for you vilify them for malfeasance for which no reasonable person would think them culpable; but also to those who have some care for the victims of this scandal, for you abuse them in taking their plight as vantage for your own petty aims.

Shame on you, sir, and on those of us who would likewise.

103. Vicky

As president of the debating society I feel I should comment on this. I have waited so long as I have spoken to the editor who agreed to make CUDS position clear, this seemed more appropriate than arguing about it in a forum such as this one. Given his backhanded comment about my so-called quotes, I’m not sure if this will be the case but I will maintain faith, and wait a while longer for him to make his promise true.

With regards to all the other accusations made on this; it deeply saddens me to see my society members and closest friends being accused of such terrible things in a public way. Although their dedication and support means so much to everyone, they shouldn’t have ever been put in the position of having to defend our society to start with. There is so much hostility among some members of the student population. I feel very distressed about this whole matter; I feel our society is coming under a personal attack in a way that is no longer directly related to the matter at hand. If the people who were making such terrible accusations knew the recipients of them, I truly believe they would think twice before making such hurtful comments. I am genuinely disappointed in those people putting individual members under attack.

I will leave my comments at this. I hope Gair Rhydd will post what they promised and go some way to clearly the debating society’s good name. Any questions: vicky390@hotmail.com

104. jonathan Bird

At NO time have I accused CUDS of corruption, telling lies or malfeasance. James 2 has no window into my soul. I made my point to them privately. Before GR got the story. I thought it was an ethical and a public relations problem. Other people my disagree with my ethical judgement. However I was right out the PR issues. I’m a member of the society and I’m friends or personably with most of them, something I have pointed out a number of times. I have defended them against personal attacks, here on this wall and at other times. Your contribution has been to make, Ad homin attacks. You say you support CUDS, well I’m a member I have been for Three years. It was because of that fact I brought to my fellow debators privately, so we could discuss it, rather than be victims of bad publicity.

105. columbo

jonathan,

I find you rather interesting. Interesting, as no matter how I go about talking about you or super-James I cant help but mock you. Its almost too easy. I think that this is simply a great way for you to kill time. clearly you dont really care about the outcome of this you just want fuel the flames of debate. I find you rather transparent in this regard. I do however have to give you some credit. you have been able to make an issue of something that was such a non issue to start with.

Did you honestly, expect people to at the debating society to quickly issue statements about macfarlanes to the media? what were they supposed to do tell the guardian that they dont support macfarlanes? No one really cares.. In addition there has been no proof of illegality on behalf of macfarlanes let alone any wrong doing. the article has been a mere speculation not proof. why would any reasonable person act on such a thing? it isnt like the media has a track record of reliable non sentational material. the funniest thing you have said so far is that people will picketting debating society events if they dont listen to your prophecy. first of all and I am suprised that noone has said this already.. but NO ONE CARES!!!.. secondly people will forget. thirdly, NO ONE CARES!!!.. The only forseeable way anyone is going to Care and say anything let alone pickett is if you tip them off for kicks which is probably cuz you & james are that sad.

106. jonathan

I believe you don’t care Columbo.

107. Sarah M

Noone should care about this until it is more than speculation, when it has been proven in court then obviously it is a concern but noone should care until the true facts are out. The only thing I care about is the fact that this article vilifies the debating society and attacks many people personally. This is sometthing I care about. This has been proven by the above inaccuracies and later attacks by James as an attack on the debsoc and very good hardworking people on the exec. Will the Gair Rhydd just apologise alreadyn so everyone can stop arguing semantics and using this forum to pick out and make crap up about the debsoc. The debsoc has no supernatural powers of fortelling, has no control over events in Africa, is subject to the findings of law over speculation and should not be the target of this debate or these attacks.

108. Sarah M

Actually, I have noticed that James has stopped messaging. Maybe he has realised he has been a fuckwit and therefore we can all put this attack to rest. Night night!

109. james 2

No man is an enigma, we are all (too) human. I apologise for writing ad hominem, but the point stands. I confess to it myself, as my previous post implies, but it is indulgence.

110. Kirsty

Is it just me, or have people just started talking in riddles now? Except Sarah M, who has started making sense?

The world has turned upside down – next, people are going to be telling me that people care enough about an article in the Gair Rhydd during summer holidays that it would get over 100 comments. Oh, wait…

111. Jonathan

I agree with James 2. It is easy to see ethical differences as personal. However It is a thought process. So people can reach different conclusions. They can differ due to many things culture, family upbring and experience. Therefore it is iliberal and inadvisable to see a lack of agreement as base on the value of each persons soul.

112. Eve

So this is where the Cardiff graduates are ending up. Not in jobs, but commenting on a university newspaper forum. Wow. Money well spent. Should have gone to a top 20.

113. Kirsty

Eve – I assure you I am very happy with my choice of Cardiff, and the money I have spent on my degree.

Not only did I enjoy a world-class politics department, but it also didnt turn me into an arrogant prick, which is a nice side effect.

114. Selvey

Thats right Eve, we’re all unemployed! Who could possibly have the time to juggle commenting on a forum AND having a job?!

And student-run newspapers are generally run and read by students – not graduates (since we’re in a bitchy mood, I thought I’d be a pedant too).

The mind boggles!

115. Augustine

Because I’m a little bit thick, I fail to understand a few things. Does anyone care to help?

Why do some of the people on the forum think that the debate society need to cut off ties with MacFarlanes before a verdict has been reached? We should base judgments on accusations? Can someone explain that to me? I’m positive there must be an argument to back this up, otherwise why would everyone be treating MacFarlane’s guilty?

I have another question! In this case, if the verdict is found to be guilty, is all of Macfarlane’s as a company, a single that’s guilty, or is it the lawyers who worked on the case who tampered with evidence? Or is it dependent on the statement that is released by MacFarlane’s on the verdict? Can a company be judged on the actions of some of the individuals? I’m not sure. Is anyone able to enlighten me?

Should both these things be considered before CDUS makes any further decisions? Or is it better to pre-emptively cut off ties and assume guilt? I don’t know!

The answers are probably staring at me right in the face, but I’m slow. I’m sorry. :(

But I do have an inking as to what I think is right; the kind of people who believe in due process and law are blatantly hypocritical assholes. They keep me from running in the streets naked and when I tell the police that black man is stealing my shit (for kicks of course) they want ‘evidence’. Jerks.

116. Stephen

Hehe. Can I propose to the Debating Society that they, in lieu of any official statement that they might be preparing in response to this, simply repeat everything that Augustine said?

Also, add that people like Jonathan can use as much cod psychology as they like, and pretend that they know PRECISELY how every small-town-African is going to react to any given situation… but that doesn’t mean that any of it is true. I could, for instance, say that ANY Western intelligent white man would be intimidating to an illiterate, small-town African. Power relations, and all that jazz. Does this mean that all law firms who perform such interviews are acting unethically and should be found guilty of witness intimidation? Of course not.

And even if the witnesses were experiencing “culture shock”, that doesn’t mean that Macfarlanes knew that what they were doing with the witness would lead to unsound testimony. I.E. No evidence that Macfarlanes had the mens rea of the crime, and are actually guilty.

That’s why we have this rather cool idea in the justice system called “innocent until proven guilty”. Which is why the vast majority of people in this comments section are rightly unwilling to condemn Macfarlanes before the trial is over – and why the Debating Society certainly should be as well.

117. jonathan

I’ve covered rat psychology in studies, but not fish, including cod.

Coming back to the actual matter in hand. Dodgy time-share salesmen used to the trick of taking someone and putting them in an alien environment, isolating them with advise. Often the inducement was a free holiday. While in an enviroment controlled by the salespeople, the “punters” were exposed to a hard-sell or psychological pressure. Macfarlanes actions match that method of operation. They have not denined doing so. Only the claim that they had legitimate fears of fraudulent claims. Well they could have relied on cross-examination, expert wittnesses etc in court. Alternatively thay might have visited Mr Bou, as I might visit someone, on their ground were they felt comfortable and had access to their support network. Instead they adopted a system used by timeshare sales from the 1980’s or a cult. Putting him in weak position. An place of enhanced alienation and vulnerability, instead of cheaper, easier, quicker and farier alternatives. I have seen these tactics on the streets of British cities and holiday resorts. The idea experienced professional men and women, were not innocently ignorant is fasical. In an organisation such an action would have required coordination. Macfarlanes have defended that action carried out by a senior partner, rather than say a junior graduate employee. If he had taken individual action, highly unlikely, they are responsible for it now. Courts have the say on who is deemed to be libable for sanctions according to the criminal law. You and I as individuals are the ones who decide who we wish to associate with. Some people won’t buy Nestle, Coca-cola or Mc donald’s products, due to there individual ethical judgement. Groups often decide to make corporate ethical judgements. For instance the Union and Nestle products, the University and Defence investment, etc.. All of the above are legal products made legally. The law is not the only standard. I won’t like associate with some who did just as he or she like with only reguard for legal consequences, would you? The judgement I ask the debating soc to make is if they wish to associate their good name and that of the University with Macfarlanes. Rather than look for an other more ethical sponser.

118. Rasputin

“JUST BECAUSE A COURT DOESNT FIND YOU GUILTY OF SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE SOMETHING WRONG.

this whole issue of of innocent until proven guilty thing that sooo many of you cling to really doesnt matter.”

Fantastic. Everything you said up to that point and since is now entirely undermined. Thanks for doing our work for us, James.

119. Rasputin

Argh, what happened to the formatting there?

I’ll try again, in case any of you can’t read that.

“JUST BECAUSE A COURT DOESNT FIND YOU GUILTY OF SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE SOMETHING WRONG. this whole issue of of innocent until proven guilty thing that sooo many of you cling to really doesnt matter.”

Fantastic. Everything you said up to that point and since is now entirely undermined. Thanks for doing our work for us, James.

120. Sarah M

In regards to timeshare – I got to see a pirate show for free from them, ate all their mint imperials and laughed in their faces when they tried to pressure me into buying timeshare. I guess I was only 11 then. My mum also smiled politely, took the free tickets etc and left. Not everyone is ‘conned’ and even if they were some people are actually happy with their purchases. I’m glad I got to see teh pirate show, one blew me a kiss and I had my first sangria. Ohhh happy days.

121. Rasputin

OK, I give up. Get a magnifying glass or something.

122. Rasputin

Looks like the formatting did work after all. Sigh. Stupid computer. Please ignore everything I’ve written since my first post (#118).

123. Sarah M

O and yea, ‘courts have the say on who is liable’. So yea lets just see what they say. Ps MaccyD’s rocks

124. Stephen

Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan.

When will you understand that, just because you’ve learnt a little bit of psychology, that learning doesn’t apply to every situation ever devised in real life? I repeat my psychological analysis (which you conveniently missed) of power relations between intelligent Westerners and poor, small-town Africans. Under this analysis (which is just as valid as yours), ANY lawyer trying to interview someone like Mr Bou would be acting coercively and in an intimidating manner… and so, according to your logic, unethically. Do you understand yet why your reasoning is flawed in this vital respect?

No-one here, as far as I’ve seen, actually believes (as you keep insisting) that legal = ethical. But what people are saying, and you keep missing, is that the facts are not yet clear enough to definitively prove Macfarlanes’ motivations one way or another. Why are you so quick and so eager to assume that Macfarlanes have been acting in bad faith? Why are you so quick and so eager to assume that Macfarlanes have been acting unethically in their dealings? All they have “admitted” to, as far as I understand it, is the facts of the interview. It is YOU who has prematurely interpreted this to equal guilt.

What is your grudge against Macfarlanes, that you immediately assume bad faith on their part and don’t consider even for a second that they might have acted with honourable intentions? And what is your grudge against the Debating Society, that you immediately assume that they are corrupt and unethical and/or sympathisers with corrupt and unethical people…without assuming even for a second that they are probably just a group of students for whom (because of your actions and the actions of gair rhydd) events have overwhelmed themselves? I think this is all very interesting, to say the least…

125. Stephen

P.S. To Rasputin… if you write more than one paragraph, in my experience the posts will always come out looking weird. Must be some quirk with the website itself. Just refresh the page once you’ve finished a post, and everything should come out looking fine :-)

126. jonathan Bird

I don’t have a grudge against the Debating society I am a member, I’ve been one for Three years.Some of my closest friends in Cardiff, I know as members. I made the facts of this case know to other members (those which are FBF). I did that mainly because I was shocked by Mcfarlenes actions, but also because I wanted to avoid Debsoc reputation being damaged. Why do I not, wait for the full facts to emerge. Well the judge in the High Court didn’t wait, because action needed to be made. While the Feb 2010 date for the IV gives us time to find a new backer. Waiting will eat up that time. Given the speed of the legal system it might not be finished on time. Why can I not accept they may have acted in good faith. I can actually, it is possible very very unlikely, but not totally impossible. If the partner was naive, had far to much travel expenses he had it used up and asked Mr Bou if he wanted an advisor. However, I do not intend to send the partner to prison, a court yet might. Debsoc’s decision should be based on what is good for the society. It has to make that valuation within the ethical ethos of the Union. If on the balance of probabilities I think Macfarlanes acted in bad faith. If I believe they broke basic princples of fairness, as did the High court, how will others view the actions of the society, if we insist on clinging to what appears to be sophistry and legal jumbo jumble.

127. jonathan

I avoided discussing your point about intelligent Westerners and Africans, because. I didn’t want to accuse you of being patronising or having a neo-clonial mindset. That’s my ethics I didn’t think that would be fare or right. However, it is because Mr Bou, you probably and I would be at a disadvantage in simular circumstances is why Macfarlenes should have acted differently.

128. anon

johnathon bird – you have terrible spelling

129. jonathan

True I’m dyslexic. However my name is spelt Jonathan.

130. Stephen

Lol at anon – pedantry fail.

One thing, though, that I want to make perfectly clear… I was not being “patronising” or “neocolonial” in my mention of power relations, as I made it perfectly clear through sarcasm that I DON’T actually believe such power relations to exist. I was just showing you how much my analysis was logically equivalent to your, equally flawed, analysis. You completely missed the entire point of my argument. Yes, what I said about power relations is almost definitely factually incorrect – but it is just as logically valid as your analysis on “culture shock”, which shows why you shouldn’t rely on it to definitively “prove” whether or not what Macfarlanes did was coercive.

And I’m sure the Debating Society will not completely ignore the accusations made in this article, however they react to it. But I wouldn’t blame them if they decide to not respond in full until the court verdict is in… until the people who know what they’re talking about (i.e. the judges) say whether or not Macfarlanes are actually guilty of anything. Or are you seriously suggesting that Debating should get rid of Macfarlanes of the basis of accusations and allegations alone?!

But it seems, Jonathan, as if we’ll have to agree to disagree. You seem to see the entire situation (and interpretations of the situation) as monolithic and black/white, whereas I see more shades of grey both in Mr Bou’s (and other’s) potential reactions to the whole procedure, and in Macfarlanes’ potential innocence or guilt. I guess we’re going to end our discussion here.

131. jonathan

Oh I see Mens rea isn’t a spelling mistake. It Means Guilty mind as opposed to Actus reus guilty act. Well I not talking criminal law here. I’m looking at the balance of likely-hood of an experienced firm or a senior partner of it, being unaware of the interpersonal and cultural effects involved. After all, shorn of legal learning, a lawers job is mainly one of interpersonal skills. I do disagree with you Stephen on that subject. Conformation pressures and culture shock have been the subject of a lot of psychological research. The former in the control enviroment of labs.

132. jonathan

Basically in legal terms there is a rebuttabled presumtion. A experienced professional would know what he is doing.

133. James

This may be true, and the actions of Macfarlanes, if not illegal, probably are ethically suspect, but so what? Even if Macfarlanes are found guilty, do people really think that CUDS should cease to accept their sponsorship? I appreciate that from the point of view of public outcry then the answer is probably yes, but it seems to me that the generosity of a sponsor should be respected, and gratitude shown, regardless of any other actions of that sponsor. Possibly were the sponsorship a gift of ‘dirty’ money, then that would be appropriate, but I don’t think that’s very relevant here.

I think a legal firm is probably quite an appropriate sponsor for a debating society. I think also that most companies similar to Macfarlanes, and indeed most which are dissimilar, will indulge in unethical practices to some degree. Capitalism more or less requires it.

Sure, Macfarlanes may have been caught out here, and accordingly will be held accountable. I also accept the argument that CUDS probably don’t condone this sort of activity, but if they were to reject Macfarlanes now I rather feel that it would display a lack of integrity rather than the opposite.

134. Edward

OK. Let’s get everything straight, as regards this whole case. None of the facts so far unveiled show Macfarlanes to have acted in anything other than a wholly ethical and professional manner. In representing Trafigura, they wanted to interview the claimants before the trial, especially as claimaints such as Bou N’Dja would probably have been unable to make the trial itself. So they had a choice. They could send someone out into the depths of the Ivory Coast, taking several days out of further work on the case and of appearances in court etc., or they could fly Bou N’Dja out to Morocco, where they would meet and interview him. Is it really that surprising that they chose the latter option?

Some people have been incredibly quick to psycho-analyse the whole procedure, and to determine who was or wasn’t being coerced/intimidated. Frankly, it stinks of unparalleled, breathtaking arrogance that anyone can pretend to assume with certainty exactly how Bou N’Dja would’ve reacted to the situation. What possibly reason is there to believe that just because Macfarlanes took someone outside of their home environment, they were acting unethically or in any suspect manner? This just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Yes, if Macfarlanes actively bribed Bou N’Dja, and/or pro-actively took advantage of his “culture shock”, that would be wrong. But there is absolutely no evidence or reason to assume that they acted in such a fashion. Jonathan, you said that “A experienced professional would know what he is doing.” But guess what? Macfarlanes are experienced lawyers, not professional psychologists. All they wanted to do, and all they did, was interview a claimant in their court case. That they did, and I see no reason whatsoever to start accusing them – by whatever legal standard you want to apply – of acting in anything other than a wholly professional, ethical manner.

To say otherwise is to jump the gun, and to pretend to know more about the facts than a court of law has determined to be the facts. Yes, the court put an injunction on Macfarlanes/Trafigura, but all an injunction does is freeze the activities regarding the original court case whilst the current allegations regarding that court case are investigated. It does not imply in any way, as various people in this comments section have been quick to assert, that the court in any way “accepts” or “admits” that Macfarlanes did anything wrong.

Simply put, I see no reason to believe that Macfarlanes have done anything wrong whatsoever, and no reason for the Debating Society to try and end its relationship with Macfarlanes. That would just be silly.

135. Matthew

James – when you mention ‘public outcry’ I’d like to highlight the fact that so far the so-called outcry amounts to: the Gair Rhydd itself, Jonathan and the first James who posted all the nasty things about Debsoc/individual members of Debsoc. Not exactly the MPs-expenses-scandal scale or anything.

I think its time to let this go. The vast majority of people who have commented here disagree with the way the story has been reported, and with the negative comments posted by a small minority of students. We’re clearly not in the wrong, and whether or not our sponsor is, is a matter for future determination, if at all.

Finally, I’d just like to reiterate the point made by one other poster. Who can a Debsoc get to sponsor them? In most cases ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE is interested. The only companies who are even worth approaching are law firms. And if you trawl through every case and every trial of every law firm you will probably find something that to some people is unethical. We can’t please everyone and student societies do need sponsorship and support – due to the lack of money available from the SU itself. I’m not saying it would justify us taking money from a clearly unethical company, just that we also have to be realistic and put these things into perspective.

136. Sarah I

I would just like to point out the ridiculousness of Johnathan’s suggestion that we should shunt Macfarlanes and get different sponsors for our IV. We are proud to be sponsored by Macfarlanes and have been for the last three years. They have always fully supported us and enabled us to put on one of the best inter-varsity competitions in the UK with incredible debaters, venues and socials.

We are entirely grateful to them for all the support they have given us and hope that they will continue to do so in the future.

I think that perhaps this topic has become tired and that we as the Debating Society should stop posting; others can post, but I think the lack of substance in anything they say stands for itself; let them look petty.

137. jonathan

Well most of the Exec have contributed here and you have made up your mind. As much as I enjoy discussion and debate, the sound of the wooden block echos from the halls wall. Only two things need clarifying I only thing I said members of the debsoc did wrong, was not wanting to listening to the complaints about Macfarlanes. I won’t think of them as a love-able farther, Christmas giving us nice presents and a party, but rather calous exploiter not only of venerable people. But also the dedication of keen student debaters. Also little imagination or knowege is required. Mr Bou N’Dja experienced is detailed in his recorded pleas. The documentary is on the BBC World service website.

138. James

oh look they chose money

im so shocked

139. James

Edward – Whether they are within their rights to interview Mr. Bou N’Dja you must accept that taking a man an putting him into an entirely new setting can have an effect on him. Your lucky enough to never have lived in the type of poverty he has but you can surely recognize that when someone offers you luxury and the finer things in life especially when you have absolutely nothing, then you are easily influenced. I am not trying to be patronzining but rather explaining a reality of life. people who have next to nothing the world are easily coerced for monetary incentive. My family was homeless for a short period of time and I remember that the due distress we lived in (which cannot compare to the severity of someone in that part of africa) my family would have done anything to change our situation especially for kids. If a lay person on the street can recognize this I am sure macfarlanes can aswell. so they essentially have a decision to make: either they look at their own convenience and do what is best for them and risk coercing a poor man or they acknowledge that it isnt in the interest of justice to take such a risk and thus either not interview him at all or make the effort to go even if it is sending another lawyer (assuming mcfarlanes have more than one) or anyone for that matter to conduct the interview. I am not saying that macfarlanes have for sure bribed Bou N’Dja but there is a possibility and that alone makes the case doubtful now. I am however sure that macfarlanes have acted unethicaly in taking such a course of action when it could have been avoidable. I am assuming a city lawfirm is full of smart people, they must have recognized that this will be an issue, yet they acted anyway out of a disregard for morality. I dont believe in a great deal of this psycho babble being explained in these comments but I do see a plain reality that does not need explaining. I just hope that you guys get off the defensive and look at the situation with wide eyes. I understand that your sponsorship means much to you (you are not the only poor society at cardiff) but as a so called well established society with its connection to central student politics you should atleast consider what some of us have been saying. Simply put, walk a few steps in Bou N’Dja shoes and try to imagine what it must be like to be him and be treated that way.

Other James – After your last comment I dont think you deserve a response. If you think that suspect unethical behaviour doesnt deserve condemnation then you are a trully bitter and cynical person. A firm that acts in an unethical manner shouldnt be allowed to associate with the debating society even if the members of the debating dont mine horrible attrocities happening to fellow humans because the debating society isnt independant of the the unnion and the students it represents..

Sarah – I am sure mcfarlnes have been very helpful and great sponsors in the past. with a guilty heart helping students must be cathartic. You epitomize the the general shallow and conceded and morally ambiguous mentality of the debating society that care for nothng accept your infamouse debates and 1500 in sponsorship you get in blood money. I cannot believe that any students can be as heartless as you and your cohorts and I am ashamed to be part of the student population with u.

I really have tried to avoid writing in this but I am so utterly dissappointed by the behaviour of some of the people on here. I have been in touch with some of the debating society members of the past few days and not a single person has given me a real explanation to the questions I and a few others have asked.

140. Jonathan bird

I think you are being too judgemental, James. Most of the Debsoc arn’t selfish or anymore selfcentred as most of us. Looking at your know situation from the outside is difficult. We all have ego defense mechanisms.

141. Selvey

I’m quite bored of this now.

Though the language used in posts interests me. CUDS debates are described as ‘infamous’, our funding as ‘blood money’, and (presumably) members as ‘cohorts’, along with the sweeping generalisation about these cohorts being conceited (i’m assuming thats what was meant).

Very dramatic. Factually questionable, and edging on (by that I mean ‘actually’) a bit ad hominem really.

Ad hominem attacks on members of CUDS won’t solve anything. How embarrassing for you.

142. Edward

FYI: The Gair Rhydd have kindly published the Debating Society’s official statement on the matter. Anyone interested in it should go to: http://www.gairrhydd.com/comment/letters/900/questionable-ethics.>