Carney given online campaigning ban

YUSU Presidential candidate James Carney has seen his right to campaign online withdrawn after a decision was reached by the returning officer.

The action follows the use of a Goodricke JCRC mailing list to send out an email endorsing Carney’s campaign and candidacy, as well as using chat options on Facebook groups to advertise his campaign.

The ban requires Carney to ensure “the removal of all social media campaigning sites and accounts including Facebook, Twitter and any mailing lists gathered” and also prohibits the sending of “any electronic messages by James or his team”,
although his candidate profile is allowed to remain.

Carney told Vision that he believes that, “The accountability of candidates and those related to them is something which needs to be looked at within electoral rules, as is setting out clear guidelines to online campaigning; currently, they are just not clear enough.”

“It is highly disappointing and damaging to my campaign. One of the main themes of the campaign was modernising the union, moving more things online, and hence I campaigned heavily using online methods.”

He had already revealed that he was “expecting to be given a campaigning ban in the near future”. The ban, which began at midnight on Monday lasts until voting closes, on Thursday at midday.

It comes as the latest incident in a series of issues regarding online campaigning. Kallum Taylor also saw his campaigning privileges withdrawn last week after posting in closed Facebook groups and being endorsed by third-parties, both of which are prohibited within the election rules.

12 thoughts on “Carney given online campaigning ban

  1. Just to make it clear, both offences cited for kallum were made by his supporters, not by himself, as he had no knowledge of either offence until he was informed by the returning officer.

    For once I agree with carney that online rules need to be looked at- how can any candidate control the hundreds of people endorsing them online?

  2. Kallum has breached numerous rules, but of course nobody cares because he is the favourite. When Zahra and Nacho have been playing by the rules the whole time, it seems that those destined for election indirectly endorses underhanded methods. He should not get elected. He doesnt have the guts to stand up against the University whereas Zahra and Nacho both do.

    Special K is all talk and no action, as Carney’s Hitler video says, “Special K? I’d rather have a bowl of coco pops”.

    Comment edited by moderator.

  3. You must be looking for an argument, as there is literally no other way to justify what you just said.

    Kallum has been reported for issues relating to facebook, where without his knowledge and consent some third parties have posted that they feel he is the best candidate. Kallum in all cases has been extremely swift to move on these issues, and has even called the appropriate people within minutes of it going online to get it taken down again. In fact, in some incidences these third parties have actually emailed the university making it clear that they did not know the rules, and that Kallum was the person who informed them that they were breaking the rules (unlike the people who reported them, who were happy to let the evidence stay on facebook whilst they happily reported Kallum).

    In reply to what you said about Kallum not having guts, that is almost laughable. The reason he was so successful last year as a college chair is because he actually has guts and stood up to the university, and his whole campaign is based around the fact that he will be a president who stands up for students.

    Kallum has not done anything wrong in this campaign, and he is almost being targeted due to the fact that he has been the favourite throughout, which is down to the fact that he has a good reputation from last year, good policies and has been on campus 7am-midnight everyday for 2 weeks. Why don’t people who spend their days writing hateful comments about candidates on social networking sites and accusing them wrongfully of cheating get out of their bedrooms, onto campus, and speak to Kallum, Zahra, Nacho, Peter, James, Tom and Abir about their policies and about what they can do for students.

  4. Also, just to clarify all of the campaign complaints about Kallum have all gone to the returning officer, and Kallum has been punished just like any other candidate would. The democracy committee agreed that Kallum could do nothing about the facebook violations, but he was punished in accordance with the rules by having his page taken down for 24 hours- he is not being treated differently from the other cadidates, far from it.

  5. I would like to take umbrage with your comments about Kallum Taylor which are quite frankly wrong and clearly founded upon bias and preference rather than on policy and genuine knowledge of the candidates. Speaking as a resident of Vanbrugh who was fortunate enough to have Kallum as its chair, I can verify that the improvements he brought to the college (principally the impending refurbishment of the bar, the lower drinks prices and the excellent Freshers fortnight) required precisely the guts you argue he lacks.

    There are many viable and strong candidates running in this election and I would remind you that to have a preference is fine, to slur another is not. Your comments that he is “all talk and not action” seem to be far more about deriding Kallum’s campaign than supporting anothers. Most significantly you offer no example, evidence or personal experience for your claim. To me Kallum’s campaign is the precise opposite of what your derogatory remarks suggests; he has been by far and away the most present on Campus of any candidate, his marketing of ‘Special K’s’ has been dedicated and thorough and he has taken the same passion for the student body that he showed at Vanbrugh through to his campaign for YUSU. I am not here to show preference to any candidate, and I wish each the best in running, but I will defend Kallum because to say he is all talk and no action is frankly rubbish.

  6. Kallum Taylor is a fantastic candidate and I do hope that he wins. I don’t think I’ve met many other individuals who have been so committed as Kallum is to furthering student campaigns since Anne Marie-Canning in 2007.

    In addition, to those criticising him above; I think your comments will rightfully fall on deaf ears.

  7. So Carney has been banned from campaigning but still remains responsible for those acting on his behalf? What happens if I’m a supporter of another candidate and urge people to vote Carney online to protest against YUSU? He gets banned? Even though I’m acting on behalf of another candidate but appearing to act on behalf of Carney?

    Stupid.

    Either put some CLEAR online rules in place or don’t allow online campaigning at all.

Comments are closed.