Students at the University of Manchester have passed a vote of no confidence in its Vice-Chancellor amid criticism of the institution’s handling of Covid. The Mail has the story.
Dame Nancy Rothwell is facing opposition over the university’s handling of Covid during the academic year – which included the erection of six-foot-high security fences around students’ halls of residence.
Some 89% of the students who took part in a referendum said they agreed that the student body had “no confidence” in the Vice-Chancellor, who earns £260,399 per year, and her senior management team.
The vote is non-binding but it will now have to be considered by the University’s Board of Governors.
Students tore down the fencing built to keep them confined in their halls of residence last November. A month before this, a student was found dead at his halls. The university said the death was neither Covid nor lockdown related, but the student’s father begged to differ.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Sadly, monetary expenditure doesn’t matter when it comes to “saving the planet”. It’s more important to be seen to be “doing the right thing by the environment” regardless of the cost. OK, the population may be saddled with crippling taxes, OK, the economy might crash, OK, society might crumble under the pressure, but we’ll be able to hold our heads up high as a nation and say “We did our bit by reducing the world’s carbon emissions by 1%”. And then sit back and realise that all the pain it’s inflicted on us has had no effect on the climate after all.
Yep, you got it in one.
Cost per house? “We do not have an accurate cost per property to provide this information”
This is a lie, obviously. They must have paid invoices for equipment and installation. Ergo, the cost is grossly disproportionate to any alleged benefit.
Weasel words – ‘We don’t know accurately the cost per property because we know we can’t just add it all up and divide by eight because some properties had PV and some had thermal solar panels. Therefore, it’s technically true that we can’t give an accurate cost per property.’
The fact they’ve refused suggests they’ve spent more than £60,000 x 8 = £480,000. If not, they’d be patting each other on the back about the massive savings they’d made.
I hope the information commissioner does not back the refusal of the FOI request on the basis that revealing the costs would be too controversial.
Yes, they lie.
Or it was paid to a few councillors mates?
Milton Friedman’s 4th way of spending money illustrated perfectly. Spending other people’s money on other people means you are not interested in either price or quality. Government spending in a nutshell – just spend it.
172 years? Nonsense. It’ll only take 12 years (if energy prices increase at 50% per year).
Exactly the same as my council. The only eco-focused properties in the borough are those built by the taxpayers’ £££s. No intention to find out if it’s value for money.
Such standards are classed as “nice to have” where private housing is being proposed, despite the declaration of the climate crisis. Hypocrisy writ large.
It isn’t supposed to be monitored they make the momey upfront because the agenda is purpose built to funnel money that way to the appropriate parties. They did well out of it. Never mind that it is fading now they are pulling money out and making money on the way down just look at electric cars.
This is par for the Net Zero course. Net Zero was waved through parliament with no discussion of cost/benefit. There was no debate and no vote. The Political Class have imposed this on us all under the false pretences of a climate crisis in order to comply with the UN’s Sustainable Development goals. Our governments are simply local administrators implementing globalist mandates, and taking their instructions from the UN/WEF. We are simply an inconvenience to them and any concerns we have are brushed aside.
All dead but we pay anyway. Can you even conceive of a way that we would get the lost money back from the last forty years. The best we can do is stop it and never allow it to happen again.
I can conceive that if they re-introduced gladiatoral combat, with the Uniparty clowns who gave us all this crap and the eco-profiteers who paid them, scrapping with hungry tigers and lions, the ticket sales would make a very big contribution to the lost money.
And hugely enhance public jollity.
I think we have to be a bit more aggressive in our response to this sort of obfuscation. When people complete these schemes, and refuse to reveal their results, we should be saying, very loudly indeed, that the only possible reason is that they have failed. And asking not what the results really were, but why they refuse to admit failure.
With Socialists it’s money no object so long as it’s not their own.