Thursday, 26 February 2009

VP Education Kevin Kelly Corrects The Gown

THE GOWN ACCEPTS THAT POINTS MADE ON PAGE 13 OF THE MARCH/APRIL ISSUE WERE MISTAKES AND WE REFER YOU TO AN EMAIL FROM VP EDUCATION KEVIN KELLY.

To whom it may concern,

Your article on Page 13 of the newest issue of the Gown concerning the upcoming elections in the Union contains several mistakes which I feel should be corrected.

The first being relevant to me and my post. The article states that I PROMISED to get rid of repeat examinations in August. Firstly, if you take a look at my manifesto you will see that not only did I not "promise" ("As Vice-President of Education I will eagerly campaign"), but I never even said that I would try to get rid of repeat examinations in August. I said that I will try to have repeat examinations included in the May timetable AS WELL AS the August one. I would like this corrected. Negotiations are ongoing within both the Education and Welfare Committee of Student Council, and between myself and Pro-Vice Chancellor Ken Brown.

The opening lines of the article have the dates of the elections wrong, saying "2nd and 3rd" when it is actually 3rd and 4th.
Under VP Community it says that the post was introduced in 2007/2008, when it was actually 2008/2009. Also you have not included the name of candidate Shane Boylan for VP Community, a rather large and unfair mistake.
Under VP Welfare it says that the post was held by Ciarnan Helferty in 2006/2007, when it was actually 2007/2008 when Ciarnan had this job. Also the name of candidate Susan Kearney is spelled incorrectly.
Under VPCS you have included Shane Boylan as a candidate in this election which will prove detrimental not only to Shane's chances of winning VP Community but also to other candidates in the VPCS election.

I hope that these mistakes are taken into consideration the next time the Gown is published and thoroughly proof-read for such errors before any mud is slung my way for 'failing to fulfill my "promises"'.

Thankyou,

Kevin.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Kevin -

Wind yer neck in.
The Gown made a couple of mistakes because they actually do work: something you should try. Although the length of the article detailing your mistakes would probably be too long.

Your adoring public!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Kevin can help me > I'm looking to spell 'useless' and thought he might help.

Anonymous said...

Good on you Kevin! Root them Gown ones out!

Gown Team said...

The Gown team, despite their alleged poor spelling, can confirm for 'Anonymous' that his/her spelling of 'useless' was indeed correct.

Well done.

Gown Team said...

The Gown team, despite their alleged poor spelling, can confirm for 'Anonymous' that his/her spelling of 'useless' was indeed correct.

Well done.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #1: A "few" mistakes?Under no circumstances would I call eight a "few", especially when the nature of the mistakes could have serious effects on the results of this years elections. Considering the Gown have such major grievances with the 08/09 sabbatical officers, I would have assumed they would be doing everything possible to ensure the "right" candidates are voted in this year...or maybe not. Maybe they need Sabbatical officers they can moan about, because as far as I can see, that particular issue seems to be the basis of their publications.

Gown Team said...

The Gown team is greatly entertained by the above comment.

Firstly, we are truly tickled at the commentator's ability to point out "eight" mistakes.

This means that they took it upon themselves to go through the article and mentally count the mistakes.

Now THAT is what we call an interested, and indeed invaluable, reader.

Secondly, do we really "have such major grievances with the 08/09 sabbatical officers"? And is the following statement a fair one... "Maybe they need Sabbatical officers they can moan about, because as far as I can see, that particular issue seems to be the basis of their publications"?

The Gown team totally disagrees with the first comment. We fairly and justly reported on the first edition of SU Mag, to the agreement of almost everyone in the Union. That is just about the only time The Gown have had "grievances" with the current executive.

We are keen to point out that when an executive member achieves something of significance we are more than eager to report on it.

See our reporting on Ciarnan Helferty's work on the QCat debacle, Shane Brogan's organising of the Inauguration party and Laura Hawthorne's continued success with liaising with the community amongst others.

We challenge you to find in the current issue an instance where we moan about the current executive...

And, in case you didn't already know, The Gown is responsibe for holding the executive to account.

Anonymous said...

Well said Gownies. Interesting posts.


Although simple things like dates really do need to be double-checked to give yourselves some credence.

Urma said...

Meh.
This is the most I've heard about Kevin Kelly all year.

Who cares about these Saabs anyway, after Wednesday the majority of them will be lame ducks

Anonymous said...

kevin kelly iz well fit

Anonymous said...

"And, in case you didn't already know, The Gown is responsibe for holding the executive to account."

Again, fantastic spelling. Anonymous can confirm that "The Gown Team" cannot correctly spell Responsible.


"We challenge you to find in the current issue an instance where we moan about the current executive..."

Back page. "As I was gliding through the corridors of the Union I was shocked and appalled in equal measures that James Murphy was the only executive member not to have a timetable of work up on the wall. Sorry... did I say shocked and appalled (lack of question mark), what I meant was unsurprised and happy. Afterall (spelling mistake), you have to actually do some work before you have a timetable completed."

Anonymous said...

Kelly makes a relevant point. If you are so keen to hold him to account then I think he is entitled to point out your errors, particularly when it concerns himself.

Anonymous said...

Get over yourself Kevin. You have done sweet fa all year. In this recession we shouldnt be wasting our fees on you.

spit

Gown Team said...

Kevin Kelly is more than welcome to point out our errors, in fact we were delighted that he wrote such a formal and eloquent email, immediately fit for publishing on the blog.

What a great guy. Thanks Kevin. You said you would never write in The Gown. Now you have.

Re: The back page
The piece of writing which is pointed out by one of the many anonymous contributors to the blog is not an example of the co-editors revelling in highlighting the flaws of the executive.

The co-editors are not responsible for anything written by The Hood.

What The Hood writes is his/her responsibilty.