The Evangelical Christian Union, a previous member society of the University of Birmingham Guild of Students, has been derognised by the Guild and now has know way back into the Guild – unless it abides by Guild policies. This is a case of the Guild saying be democratic or get out. I think this is perfectly fine, the Guild sets its own laws, which are decided by a democratically elected council. No sub-organisation can have rules which go against this! The Evangelical Christian Union has been told to cahnge to conform or bye bye. I have no sympathy for their battle. If you want to have your own organisation that has these rules then fine, but you can’t be part of another organisation that stands for democracy. I say this cause the consitution, as currently is, of the Evangelical Christian Union is not at all democratic. Sort it out people! You are supposed to be educated people. Oh and going and making press releases is just daft, what do you think that will do…. just make more students against you. This got press coverage in the Times and was also in [local media]. I believe the Guild of Students and the University have both made press releases about this, but I’m being too idle to hunt them down, sorry!
Well it feels like I never left! Being back in charge of the University of Birmingham Astronomical Society is kinda cool. I enjoy the challenges it poses. It is always fun, especially when you have a committee who is energetic and eager to succeed. This is exactly what we will do. It is my first meeting back in charge tomorrow and I’m well looking forward to getting back up at the front and introducing our guest speaker, Dr Somak Raychaudhury. I remember being affraid of doing these introductions.. not this time. :-). [Astrosoc] will be my undoing I swear, I just spend too much time on it! Heck, now I’m posting about it. I need sleep.
Well if you get February’s edition of this magazine then you will be able to see my ugly mug in this months experts list… I’m not sure how much of an expert I am but heck I’m not complaining. I actually now come up with the society events section on a monthly basis and this is the first one, so I can’t moan. Oh and don’t moan at me if there are any errors in the list(!). For more info on the mag take a look at their [website].
Maybe… or maybe the subject material needs to be better! Take a look:
[Bye Bye Charlotte]… and come back Oscar Wilde and Patrick the Brewer!!! Please. Ash’s latest album was great, but their older stuff is well, rather cool! I like their last album but you can’t beat a bit of Petrol can ya! We need you Oscar, get back in the studio with them and be their inspiration and maybe even their Guru!!
[Greenpeace] have missed the point on this one! It seems that they are confusion climate change with freak accidents! This video is nothing but shock tactics, and does not explore any of the issues that are at all important. I believe that nuclear power isn’t the best idea, and I also believe that we need to invest heavily in renewalable power. Nuclear power isn’t the future, thats a fact. However, the fact is we need power and heck its “cleaner” in terms of climate change than the conventional power generation methods (depends what you call conventional though, cause most use heating and turbines). The future is to be renewable and that involves the Sun!! Oh and unsightly wind turbines… but I don’t mind them though they scare me, they are huge! Anyway I really think that it is unethical of them to introduce this shock tactic to a very hard to sort out issue. Plus the probablilty that a) a plane will crash and b) that it will hit the exact spot that a nuclear reactor is at, is well low! I bet there is a better chance that the dog in the video would bite that kids face off (I can be graphic as well). I’d agree though if a plane hit a reactor it would have dire consequences but their video suggests that it will have a bomb like ending, it just wouldn’t as the reactor has already gone critical. It, however, would be very bad – putting radioactive material all over the place (and thats technical terminology!). I just don’t think they have addressed this at all well. Maybe they should put forward the postiives of renewable energy and focus on why this is better! Heck we need lots of power and the way things currently are nuclear is the only realistic way, but we need to set it up so within 20 years we aren’t relient and are working to a 100% renewable energy setup (which is unlikely, but you can dream). End of rant.