The Gown Student Newspaper at Queen's University Belfast

They're still on the street

Any updates on this? A fair couple of days have passed since Tuesday.

The current editorial team are doing a fantastic job. The website is great, even with the suspension in place! Keep up the good work! :)

It is amazing to see so much support for The Gown. It shows that many Queen's students actually care. How about listening to your students for once 'President' Brogan? Or is this matter simply out of your hands?

This is ridiculous. Dodge, Brogan and certain members of the exec committee are clearly not looking out for their students and instead, looking out for themselves. They should respect the independence of the student newspaper that has been running since 1955! It was around long before them and will remain as an important part of QUB after them.

Lets just hope Mc Greevy doesn't become another one of Mr. Dodge's little lap dogs. I wont hold my breath though.

Ps. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you this but... Don't sign anything!!

Hey Alan,

The rest of the academic year is deceptively long. Queen's students have only one more week, and then three weeks easter break, in which we suspect there will be nothing substantial to report.

We were intending to do two more issues during the four remaining weeks after easter, but we decided against this for several reasons:

a. We intend to use the time to assemble a new team of student volunteers.
b. We will be creating a new internal code of practice to ensure standards are maintained within the newspaper, duties of the team are stipulated, and editorial positions are assigned based solely on merit.
c. Many of our core team are final year students, so we need to concentrate on our degrees! The fact therefore that many of us will be leaving the paper adds pressure to recruit a strong team for next year.

The Gown has produced 11 issues this year. We are incredibly happy with this as it is the most editions produced during an academic term for around 30 years. Also, our website has really taken off this term. Just yesterday we set a new record of 9496 page views in one day.

Coverage will of course continue on this site, so we'd encourage all readers to keep checking for the latest news, and more besides.

Brendan Hughes
advertising@thegown.org.uk

I think it's time for a petition!!!
Or protest!!!

Also if the gown publishes something the su doesn't like maybe they should think why are the gown saying this about us? Is it true? And do something to fix it. The voice of the students should not only be heard but acted upon!!!!

Why was Mondays edition the last copy of the gown for THIS ACEDEMIC YEAR?

Maybe I am mistaken but I though students were here until May/June.

What happened guys? You just get lazy?

What is the current VP Campaigns (the future Preident of the SU) doing about this? Is a campaign to lift the ban ready for Monday morning?

A worrying development to say the least, even more so when you consider the attempt at censorship is coming from someone representing the actual Univeristy, a place where free thinking and speech is to be encouraged and praised. I think Mr Dodge needs to step back and take a long look at himself, and if he doesn't then hopefully somebody will for him.

I do not know the ins and outs of the argument. However one thing I do know is that Queens as a 'business' is phasing out any potential scuppering of their own future plans. I have no doubt this has come from the higher echelons of the University personally. The Gown as a newspaper should never sacrifice its independance and its name for the sake of a few people who have thrown their toys out of the pram. To take criticism is one thing but to react in such a manner as the Union has done is reminicent of the censorship years of the BBC and Thatcher in 1988. Alrite I hear some people say that is a bit far fetched but everything is seen within context and scale. This is an excercise of power and if anything a silly one. To finish a wise man once said, 'Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” Queens Union is in an unhealthy state to say the least and to be honest I hope they get what they deserve after all its just business.

see below

Comments will not be published if:

You reveal any private information about yourself or anyone else, such as contact details.

Your local college can help you address these essential skills needs

Just out of curiosity, why are so many people posting without putting forward their names? If you have an opinion you think is valid, surely you would want your name tied to it.

@ Rear Mudguard: So, if we are not happy with the performance of the officers WE elected, we must shut up unless we are willing to stand ourselves? Is this also the case with national Politics? I am pissed off with the way new labour has ruined aspects of the country, but I cannot criticise unless I am willing to stand as an MP?

I'm sorry, I don't believe I issued a manifesto claiming all sorts of fantastic things about how I would work for students.

This is from Shane Brogan's statement on the QUBSU website

"ensuring that students have their voice heard at every level in the University ".

With this evidence I have no problem in calling Shane Brogan a liar. That is not a libellous statement. Shane Brogan has clearly stated in print that he would be "ensuring that students have their voice heard at every level in the University" and has actively perused an opposite course of action, making him by definition a liar.

@ Hang on a second

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and many inaccurate perceptions of the situation at the moment. Yes, the final draft of the memo was produced by myself and Gown business manager Brendan Hughes. It is an extremely watered down version of the initial proposal made by the Union on 1st February, in which it was made clear that the Union hoped The Gown would agree to, among other things, show copies in advance of print.

At no point did we say that we would sign the current memo, and we certainly didn't state a time frame in which we would sign it. We were unaware that our getting back into our office depended on our signing of this document. As far as we were concerned, due to our next edition not due until September, we had some time to make a final decision with The Gown Trust. As editor, I think it is unreasonable for the Union to expect me to sign a binding document in The Gown's 55th year in existence. There has been 55 years without a document and I certainly would want to ensure that should I sign anything that it is a well informed and well advised decision.

Having sought advice from The Gown Trust and various Gown alumni, we have been advised that it would be a mistake to sign the document in its current form.

I would also like to point out at this conjecture the fact that the clause on the memo which stipulates that the Union see copies prior to distribution has been unfortunately misunderstood by the Union. As it currently stands, it says that the editor should "endeavour to" and that it would be "subject to The Gown's code of practise". It does not say that the editor is "obliged to" show advance copies.

Dodge's decision to impose a second ban on The Gown on Monday appeared to be based on this particular clause, coupled with the fact that I have yet to sign anything. In regard to the article on the front page, I thought that it was important for people to know the facts, and all information included in that article is lifted straight from EMC minutes and Union documents.

I am aware that President Brogan sent an email to council in which he refers to my article and says that references I have made are "inaccurate". I was appalled by this statement in his email, and feel that it is absolutely necessary to point out that my article clearly states that I was referring to a proposal made by the Union earlier in the year. I would be more than happy to forward this particular document to council.

I also feel that the offending article pointed out some very interesting facts in the situation. A key point being that no falsehoods by Gown were submitted by sabbatical officers when requested by the President. The Union is keen to point out any mistakes made by The Gown this year, which I can assure you are few and far between. Yet few people would know that an error made on the front page of the 14th December issue wasn't brought to my attention until near the end of January.

Any error is bad journalism and I in no way condone instances such as these. I want to be a journalist and I can assure you that I want to be a GOOD journalist. However, if the Union are to complain about this instance then the fact that they didn't consider it worthwhile complaining to the editor as soon as they read the paper on 14th December is surely questionable. I hope some things have been cleared up here, and I thank you for reading The Gown all year. If you have any other questions I'll be happy to answer.

@Anon

We are still banned from the office. A new meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday at 11am.

Catherine Wylie
Editor

Rear Mudguard, I doubt it will really matter - these Christian loonies will have the entire thing run into the ground by then.

What is the current situation? Was there any development at the meeting yesterday?

Hopefully many of those who have posted criticisms of the current student officers above will put themselves forward as candidates in next year's sabbatical elections.

Or is whinging more comfortable from your armchair?

"The Gown team was presented with the final draft of the memorandum last week."

Dear Gown team, could one of you please clarify - was the text of the memorandum's final draft not in fact written by yourselves? And did you not agree with SU management that you would sign it, so they let you back into your office office on good faith, before turning round and writing an unnecessarily defiant article as the front page of the last issue?

Two simple questions - can we have a couple of simple answers please?

*To clarify - I like the Gown, I've read every issue this year and been on the whole impressed. I just think this a whole load of unnecessary posturing when an agreement had already been reached.

This situation makes me sigh deeply. I don't even know how to articulate a concise response as there is so much to be said, and there are already so many good points on this thread. I absolutely agree with those who are of the belief that Queen's no longer has an effective Students' Union. Whilst in recent years we would have complained about apathy amongst the student body, we now have on our hands a situation wherby the very avenue in which we could complain about apathy is being threatened. And "threatened" it genuinely is. Make no mistake...what is happening here is serious. An independent student newspaper group has been removed from its office, and copies removed from the building, because they didn't sign a memo which the Union believed would give them advance copies of each edition. Put aside what you think of The Gown, what is happening here is outrageous. It's an absolute scandal. The sooner something serious is done sbout this the better.

These are the consequences of an apathetic and apolitical student populace. The Union has been allowed to slide into this state over the years because there has been no pressure from students to motivate elected officials to do a real job of being an independent representative body for Queens students. Instead, we have had a bunch of useless posers who see the chance for a paid year at uni and they jump at it. There are notable exceptions but the general trend has been that the Union is a token institution with no muscle.

The Gown is an independent University newspaper. The job of the media in any social group, large or small, is to hold those in power accountable. Its neccessary for democracy, and when those in power dont like what is said of them, then they can respond or object in any way they see fit, but using their power to stomp out the dissenting voices is just censorship.

The union should ideally be taken back by the students,but since thats not likely to happen, The principles of democracy and freedom of speech should be upheld by everyone as best they can and that means supporting the gown in whatever way possible right now.

Imagne the government passing a law to stop the Belfast Telegraph from using their offices when they say mean things about them. Itd be an international scandal. Interfering with the press in this fashion is something people associate with third world dictatorships, not with western universities!

consider if you will what role Herr Brogan has played in this escapade. I hope by the way that he reads this but I know through personal experience that he will take none of what I am about to say to heart.
You sir, should be ashamed of yourself. You were elected by QUB students to serve QUB students, to maintain the students union and to protect the rights of students. You have failed in all of these duties. You have become nothing more than a lapdog to Andrew Dodge and his cronies in the upper echelons of the Admin Building. Your unavailability for comment and thus your silence speak volumes. You have used the position of Students' Union President to for no other reason than to enlarge your public persona and have something nice to put on your CV. Let it be known that you will be the first SU President to undermine Students' right to free speech, the legacy you will leave will be that of not a despot, but an underling, a willing accomplice to mass greed and capitalism. Your name will be begrudgedly engraved beside men and women who actually did what they promised to do. When Andrew Dodge says jump you don't even ask how high, you leap in expectation that your efforts will please him.

Your resignation sir would be the only course of action now that could potentially save your reputation.

No to censorship.

I love the feel of those sweet jackboots on my legs

To anyone who genuinely sits down and knows the facts about this whole thing and thinks it through, it is both scary and worrying that anyone at QUB should take the side of the Union. From the mid 1990s the SU has steadily moved towards its current state of being merely a business, and not a Students' Union. The sabbatical officers seem to be there as a matter of formality, merely a "It's a Union. We need to have sabbaticals and Council, oh, and a president too". But from the way this latest ban has been decided, on a whim by the unelected director, can't people see what is going on? The SU, in its current state is an events venue, not a Students' Union. I've read The Gown all year and I think the current team should be very highly commended on their output. A fortnightly newspaper coupled with a regularly updated website takes some amount of dedication, and I think it's pretty obvious that the current team are one hell of a committed and passionate bunch, both about the tradition of the gown as an institution and as a starting ground for a career in journalism. They aren't trained journalists. They're finding their way and they're doing extremely well. Keep in mind also that they are full time students studing for a degree, and if my info serves me correctly, a lot of them are in final year. It's be hard to find another club or society at QUB which you could say the same about. So, why should the Union help The Gown in any way? The Gown criticises them and offends them, I hear you argue. Take into consideration the invaluable importance of an independent voice. Any university worth its salt will have an independent publication, but not many will have one with a history behind it like The Gown has. The SU mafia should be ashamed of themselves and if this goes any further then so too should Queen's. The current team has my full support.

Well - what a lively and to some degree ill-informed discussion. It appears that some of your respondents don't seem to appreciate the function of a newspaper as opposed to a house news sheet.

It is perfectly proper for a newspaper to to comment - on events, on the actions taken by individuals connected with those events, on the reasons advanced by those concerned in thoe actions. It is also a normal activity of a newspaper to report - what happened; is about to happen; where; when; involving whom - including, where appropriate, quotations and comments made by third parties.

If those doing the reporting were not direct witnesses to the events, it should be made clear that they are relying on other persons or sources of information. Where other persons make the information available they must make clear to the journalists whether their input is on an attributable or non-attributable basis and, if the latter obtains, it is a well-founded and often defended principle that the source in question should not be revealed.

A newspaper's writers should make clear to the reader which of the content is comment and which is reportage. Tags such as 'Editorial','Opinion', 'Review','Letters to the Editor' and suchlike generally denote comment and such comment mustbe fair and must refrain from being libellous.

Comment doesn't have to make its target feel happy - but if it doesn't - they should have the right of reply via the newspaper - or otherwise.

As to reportage - basically a newspaper can report on anything that is not legally restricted (eg by Official Secrets Act)- but it must pass the test of appealing to its readers' interest. If is is judged by them to be irrelevant - or just plain boring - then they should do the right thing; use the newspaper to wrap chips and stop reading it.

Gown should keep on being a newspaper - and I wish it success!

Shouldn't you guys call a UGM demanding the re-in statement of the Gown? If you get enough people it's mandatory Union policy; but even if not it keeps the pressure up.

I don't think anything printed was knowingly biased or factually flawed because the Union hasn't been able to produce any evidence of this as far as I'm aware...?

x

Any errors made by The Gown this academic year, as is the process with any newspaper, were retracted and apologised for immediately.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the following...

"Now if an organization such as The Gown has broken a contract with another party, for example the Union, on a deal they have singed up top in the presence of witnesses then they must be ready for any disciplinary actions taken by said party."

Catherine Wylie
Editor

@ Catherine

However a journalist is required to fully research their source and their article, and most importantly take responsibility if there are inaccuracy's in their piece.

If a journalist has been found to have knowingly written or printed a biased or factually flawed article then they must face the consequences of their actions. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Now if an organization such as The Gown has broken a contract with another party, for example the Union, on a deal they have singed up top in the presence of witnesses then they must be ready for any disciplinary actions taken by said party.

Such is the way of things, nobody is above reproach or the law...except maybe the VC it seems.

A journalist is not required to reveal sources.

Catherine Wylie
Editor

@ 42. Jane B. Dick, and plenty of others on here.

It's a volunteer, amateur outfit. Join, help us improve. If I name the sources, no-one speaks. If it helps, at one time or another, more or less anyone who's anyone in the Union has been a 'source'.

Define hearsay: if I print what I'm told by someone I have reason to believe, that fits a pattern of things established to be true, is that sourcing or hearsay? Look at the best political / parliamentary journalists about; this is the only way to do these things. Often messy, and sadly open to abuse, it needs done.

Define "hard evidence". Take the Redpath council stories. (By the way, personally, I don't mind Alex.)

PRP is controversial, and opinion was split, and still is in the executive. It's important to report - it's a window into dysfunctional executive relationships, attitudes to accountability and the relative power or relevance of the council, as opposed to EMC or the President or VPs. What I took from 'sources' was that Redpath favoured PRP and was also looking for a place on the Law/GAA ticket in the elections. The second turned out to be demonstrably true, but was denied at the time.

His actions regarding his PRP speech/ruling are contested, but recently council voted 17-15 against the Speaker, based on what they thought went on. I take that as an endorsement of my hunch, and what I saw happen at the meeting, and what was then corroborated by sources. What 'hard evidence' would I need to make you happy? A card saying "I tried to wreck PRP to get elected. Signed, Alex." That, or nothing? Come on.

This final point, I'm very, very frigging tired of making. I don't pick fights. The Gown doesn't pick fights. You might not think it to look at me, but I have much better things to do than fire petty, unsubstantiated potshots at near strangers, or "the people that matter."

We just want to report, and we do. And people don't like that. So tension builds. Don't be so naive and trite.

By the way, continue to criticise - there's an awful lot of room for improvement, and we need as good and regular a kicking as anyone else.

Farcical, this S.U. is a complete joke.

while i'm all for free speech and don't feel as a matter of principle the gown should be suspended from the union i think that perhaps if they weren't so determined be controversial and to pick fights with the people that matter within the union or perhaps if they managed to back up their stories with hard evidence as opposed to hearsay, or could possibly even state who their "reliable sources" or "insiders" are, none of this might have happened!

Maybe we can stop reading articles based on biased hear-say rather than genuine sources. In b4 Vote-1!

@ Grassy Knoll:

think you'll find The Gown has been drawn into spats as a result of trying to do basic reporting; we have no vendettas, special interests or agendas to push. We just want a strong, open Union, while others want an easy time and Gownies off their backs.

never mind complaining to Dodge (though that is a good idea) -it's the VCs email we should be clogging. The Gown needs to wheel out its big guns (metaphorical ones) - get your old alumni to contact the top brass in the university - i doubt one person had the authority to do this on their own, so if Dodge has acted ultra vires he needs to feel pressure from above him in the university. The general director of the union can't be that senior in the pecking order. Go over his head!

As an on-looker, I think this is solely an issue of free speech. In my view that's definitely something that's worth getting in an argument over.

yeah i have dyselixa, thanks for being a pedant, and drawing on that.
And yes you have a childish attitude coupled with a superior one. Here's a question - if you're a member of the gown team and you keep getting into arugments, how will you fair out in the real world ? Newspapers beware

Have a referendum, in my time at Queen's it was possible to have a referendum by collecting signatures from the student body.

censorship as my post isn't being posted?! Thanks Gown! Hypocrits!

Grassy Knoll,

"should of"
"strenghts"
"the gown done some..."!?

Maybe if you could articulate a grammatically correct sentence I would take you seriously.

Andrew Dodge's email address is:
a.dodge@qub.ac.uk

I'm drafting a personal complaint now, so I'd suggest other concerned students to follow suit!

Maybe the gown shouldn't be used as a meduim to 'get at people' and those in the gown should of maybe stuck to their good journalist strenghts, and not petty little vindictive spats against those who they didn't agree with. Just because you got into a position of power did you think it was yours to manipulate ? As I said I thought the gown done some great journalism but this was lost out to silly little vendettas, which was pathetic. Take note future Gownies ! Best, Grassy Knoll

I want to hear exactly why Andrew Dodge has taken this decision, rather than just specualtion on here.

I propose we draft an email expressing our disapproval at the events and ask for an explanation as concerned students, then circulate the draft to as many students as possible. If we get enough students to send it we can clog up his inbox - it's a quick way for the masses to register their disapproval and I think it's vital that we stand up for independent student journalism.

Does anyone have his email address?

Maybe if that girl Catherine Wylie would stop being so stuck up and actually do proper journalism she might be treated with a bit more respect! She always has a sour look on her beak too!

Letting Sonya Mac in and forcing the Gown out. Oh dear Union you disappoint me...

Are they serious like??? it's a student newspaper not nazi propaganda

As a graduate of QUB, former 'Hood', NUS-USI convenor and former President of USI, you have my complete support. I will do what I can to bring this to the attention of the NUS, and will blog on the subject today. What you chaps need is a room outside the SU. And some academic support.