[unclear: forms]

[unclear: would] like to ask Andrew Tees why he did [unclear: attend] the Monday 23 July forum. He as [unclear: ident] and also a supporter of the motions [unclear: er] discussion would have been an ideal spea- [unclear: Also] I would like to know why the mo[unclear: of] the motion also declined to attend.

[unclear: t] ais part of their argument for the motions [unclear: forums] can be held to discuss matters which [unclear: be] going to referenda yet they decline to take [unclear: in] any forum prior to the SGM. Those people [unclear: did] attend felt the lack of balance. Not one [unclear: on] in the hall openly supported the motions, were there no supporting speakers? Maybe [unclear: e] are no supporters, maybe the movers don't [unclear: port] the motion but more likley the movers Andrew Tees have something to hide.

Robin Craw claimed, Salient 23 June, that [unclear: EY] didn't want the motion discussed at an [unclear: It] would be more truthful to say they did support the motion but if it was brought to a SGM, then they would discuss it. In fact they set up a forum prior to the SGM to discuss the motions.

Mr Robyn Craw went on to say some very stupid things such as (about SRC) "this seems like democracy but realy there is no way in which the majority can make it's will effective." The way the majority makes it's will effective it by turning up to SRC's and listening, talking then voting. What Robin Craw, Michael Carr-Gregg and Andrew Tees want is to isolate the student from rational informative discussion.

Stephen Ruth.