It is clear that something needs to change in the student health centre. It was assumed that with the advent of health centre charges, things would be different. No more long waiting times, more services and an altogether better health centre was what we thought was coming.

However, it is obvious to anyone that has visited the health centre that this is simply not the case. While certain services, like the contraceptive clinic, have been reintroduced, waiting times are still quite lengthy and it feels wrong to pay €25 for the same service we were getting for free twelve months ago.

Because of these problems, Students’ Union President Gary Redmond has proposed that a health insurance scheme be implemented in the student health centre. The scheme, if approved by students, could see a payment of up to €100 being paid alongside the registration fee. This payment would amount to a health insurance premium, which would cover students for a limited number of health centre visits, as well as offering them health and travel insurance outside of the university.

While all of this sounds great on paper, especially as the counselling service will be operating on €125,000 less than this year, the reality is not so perfect. This scheme is riddled with problems and is likely to cause contention within the student body.

To assume that all students use the health centre is naïve at best. While it is undoubtedly a necessary and valuable service, it is not a facility that everyone uses. Given the current economic climate, it is bizarre that the SU would consider asking students who do not even use the service to pay up to €100 for it. While the current system is not perfect, it certainly seems fairer for students to pay for the service as they use it, instead of forcing everyone to pay.

Similarly, there seems to be an assumption that all students are without health insurance. Many students are a part of family schemes or simply pay for their own health insurance. This is particularly pertinent for mature students, who simply will not want to give up on their family policies simply to suit UCDSU.

It is commendable that students with medical cards will not have to pay, but this decision is coming at the worst possible time. While the recession has undoubtedly affected the health centre, it has also affected students’ pockets. If UCDSU are planning on campaigning politicians to cap the registration fee, they cannot expect students to pay an extra €100 on top of what is already a crippling payment. It is simply hypocritical.

There is too much bureaucracy involved in making sure that this scheme is implemented in a fair way. It is simply not feasible. In a time that is economically unsure, students should not be expected to pay money by the people who are supposed to be protecting their interests. €100 might not seem a lot to some people, but for others it is the difference between making rent and missing a payment or simply eating or not. If UCDSU’s sabbatical officers and class representatives wish to properly represent those that have voted them into the positions they hold, they must realise the needs of those that they are serving. Students do need a proper health centre, but it needs to be properly administrated and funded in a fair way. As students simply would not pay if the payment were not mandatory, it seems as if it will have to be for it to make any real change. A lack of choice is not something that students should be asked to accept, in any form.

If academia is the backbone of a university, then societies could be regarded as the heart. Nobody can deny their contribution and the positive effect they have to university life, but the current year seems to have brought about a lull in their activities compared to previous sessions.

The profile of guest speakers who have visited the university at the societies’ behest could be taken as an example of this trend. In the previous two years, the names that have graced the campus with their presence are many and varied: international stars such as Will Ferrell, and J.K. Rowling, have touched down in UCD  because of the efforts of these societies such as the L&H Society and the Law Society.

Set your sights to the current year and the contrast couldn’t be greater. The L&H are currently showing films most weeks, while the Law Society are bringing in Jeremy Kyle, a man famous for his aggressive approach to the dysfunctional guests on his ITV daytime chat show. The most high profile guest for students this term, Bill Bailey, was brought in due to a joint collaboration between the two societies.

The obvious reduction of funding in societies has caused this shift to occur. The money that societies once received from annual sponsorship had decreased due to businesses not having the same financial means as before.

With or without these financial issues, it could be argued that many societies had fallen into a comfortable routine of churning out the same events each year and now seem to be experiencing difficulty in coping with the changes the year has brought. Although new students come into the university, the majority of students are already familiar with these events meaning that there’s no obvious incentive for them in attending the same event or debate twice.

Further, students don’t have the same funds to spend as they once had and attending events like society balls or nights out on a regular basis is no longer a viable option. Societies relying on these events as a means of funding will have to be become more selective as to what events they hold or at least improve on what they already do to gets students to part with their cash.

Society balls have taken a hit over the previous year although events this term like the Arts Ball, which sold out within hours, appear to be coping with this problem better than expected.

But perhaps the financial restrictions will be a blessing in disguise for these societies. While it has forced them to balance the books more efficiently and exercise a degree of caution as to how they utilize these funds, they will have to use more creative and intuitive methods to try and capture the imaginations of students.

Meanwhile, the decrease in profile for them could mean that smaller societies in the university could get the chance to shine with events that could have been overshadowed by the arrival of a high profile guest. Such a change could entice students to explore or get involved with other smaller societies and aid their growth and scope for activities.

Despite this, it must be noted that the societies in UCD do a fantastic job in making university life more vibrant and the students running them should be commended for the effort they put in each year. It’s up to them now to also show the imagination they once had, if they want to keep engaging the minds of student

SIPTU announced last week that it was operating the work-to-rule as part of nationwide action being taken in protest against governmental pay cuts across all sectors. However, UCD itself has already been affected by industial action last semester, the effects of which were quite disruptive.

In theory, students will support a strike initiative – but since it emerged that the work-to-rule is affecting the processing of exam results, students will be slow to find satisfaction in what workers have been forced to do.

The SIPTU protest means that lecturers are refusing to work overtime, outside of their designated hours, or in any way that exceeds the strict definition of their job conditions. Put simply, they are working by the rules of their employment, hence the name ‘work-to-rule’. If they do not complete some work on time, they simply don’t do it; the only alternative is to rush the process. Whichever of these two alternatives ultimately occurs, a large percentage of students will be affected.

Firstly, there is the obvious frustration of having thousands of students anxiously await overdue exam results. Secondly, there is the pondering over whether or not a student deserved a better grade – in which case, the ‘skewed’ result might be attributed to a rushed job as a result of the work-to-rule. The students who are most affected are those who are applying for further study, such as final year undergraduates applying for Masters degrees or other postgraduate places. Students who are unable to choose writing samples to submit, or to see their GPA, may find the added time constraints an extra pressure in their application process.

There have also been complaints by a number of PhD students about the additional correction workload they are being assigned, thanks to the action SIPTU are undertaking. Lecturers and professors appear to be giving the work they cannot complete within the work-to-rule timeframe to senior students working as tutors to undergraduates.

SIPTU’s President, Jack O’Connor, has stated that unless the pay cuts imposed by the government are reversed, the work-to-rule will continue. Thus it is likely that many more applications are set to be affected.

Students look set to find themselves in a situation where they have no idea of their continous assessment results when they are entering into their final exams. Depending on the length of the work-to-rule, there remains a possibility that some students will enter their summer exams without having received any of their continous assessment results.

Though students are generally regarded as a protest-happy subset of society, in a strange twist of events, we are not only external to the protest group in this case, but we are also baring the full brunt of the effects posed by this industrial action. We might sympathise with the strikers, but surely the timing of the work-to-rule should have been taken into account by the education representatives in SIPTU who voted it to go ahead?

Two weeks ago, students at the Waterford Institute of Technology walked out of their lectures in protest against a similar action taking place in their institution, which had affected the release of their Christmas exam results. For once, students were protesting against an action, which itself was taken against the cuts implemented by the government. While comments have been made against protesting students in the past, as regards consumption of study time while engaging in protests, we now see an unusual set of circumstances where academic work is being affected by those who are meant to be encouraging it. While students can clearly understand that staff members feel they have no other option, surely it is clear that the work-to-rule is posing more harm than good.

While students clearly have a degree of sympathy with their protesting lecturers, the purposes of this industrial action need to be urgently reviewed – or, better yet, a different type of action should be considered in order to prevent work piling up on lecturers’ desks. We are not denying that we excessively use our voices when a government policy affects us, but this industrial action could affect us drastically too. All that students ask is that those at the centre of the work-to-rule consider some other, less disruptive – and perhaps a more effective – form of action.

Depending on your point of view, this time of year can be either incredibly exciting or horribly annoying. The Students’ Union’s annual sabbatical elections mean that the university walls are cluttered with the faces of those running for election, with hopeful electioneers making lecture addresses several times an hour. On the day itself, crowds gather in buildings to jostle for the attention of voters, and end up managing both to create a tense atmosphere, and to annoy almost everyone.

This year, however, it looks as if the excitement and annoyance of the SU elections are to be greatly diminished. In previous years we have become used to highly contested races, fraught debates, and an atmosphere of huge competition. But now that three of the races – those of President, Entertainments Vice-President and Welfare Vice-President – are uncontested, it is time to ask whether students even care about the SU. Another reason for examining the worth of the SU comes with the poll conducted by The University Observer elsewhere on these pages, showing that student recognition for the five current SU sabbatical officers is embarrassingly low.

Students cannot take all the blame for being uninterested in UCD Students’ Union – it can often seem like no effort is being made to make the Union more accessible to the average student. While there are far more class reps this year than in previous terms, a visit to Union Council is ample evidence of the fact that many of these reps – whose job, among other duties, is to attend Council on their classes’ behalves – simply do not show up. It is the same old faces that inhabit Council every week. Some classes have dedicated class reps who take their job seriously, but quite a number of the inhabitants of Union Council are everlasting students whittling away a year of their varsity lives.

While nobody can deny that the SU does achieve things and that its officers work hard, it must be asked why these officers aren’t interacting more with the people they claim to represent? In saying that they speak for the 22,000 students enrolled in UCD, the SU sabbatical officers claim a responsibility to know, and be known, to their constituents. Collectively, students pay €2,000 in wages every week to the five sabbatical officers; the least that they can expect, in return, is proper value for money in the form of openness and transparency.

The SU has essentially become a closed corridor, not being particularly open to the average student looking to get involved. To say that it is riddled with cliques is an understatement: to put it bluntly, if you don’t know the right people already within, there’s no point in an average student attempting to do anything within the SU. You may have a passion for education, welfare or campaigning, but don’t count on being elected unless you know a lot of people – and they must be the right people – even if you do manage to get into the electoral race.

Perhaps this is why there are only eight candidates running for the five sabbatical positions, and why only one woman has decided to run.  In a university where the majority of students are female we have become forced, year after year, to tolerate an overwhelmingly male-orientated and biased SU. Similarly, different races and ages are barely represented, nor are those with disabilities. For an institution with a population as diverse as UCD’s, our student representation is depressingly uniform. We have all stopped caring about a Union that doesn’t itself care about being visible to us. It is clear that change needs to occur when people do not know who the sabbatical officers are, or what they do, and fail to recognise them from posters that are clearly not doing what they are intended to.

A Union must represent all of its members. Unless the Students’ Union is visible, the roles within it will continue to be irrelevant. Why would students vote for, and how are they meant to recognise, people who won’t make themselves known to them? The next crop of sabbatical officers will be the same as the generations that came before it – unless they take real action to engage with the people that put them where they hope to be. Hopefully they will take the results of The University Observer’s survey on board, and use them as motivation to become more visible and relevant to students for the next academic year.

But students too must take action. If posters and campaigns are not grabbing students’ attention, it can’t be all the fault of the Students’ Union. We need to engage in our Union if we’re to get any benefit from them at all. To change, we must all be involved, and the SU, not just its officers, must make an effort the make this happen.

What we all knew has finally been admitted to. Last week, at a session of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Science, Ireland’s seven university leaders openly declared that the student registration fee is, in essence, a form of fees by the back door.

The session came to being when Students’ Union presidents from UCD and Trinity, Gary Redmond and Conan Ó Bróin, requested detailed breakdowns of the student registration fee and what it is spent on. When the charge was introduced in 1996, it was stated that it would be used solely for administrative issues relating to student registration, examinations and student services. However, this became problematic when it was realised that there is no legal definition of ‘tuition’ or of ‘student services’.

Since then, it seems as if universities have decided to pick and choose what qualifies as a student service. Traditionally, one would assume that this covers student health, counselling, clubs and societies as well as registration and examination charges. This year, however, UCD is counting the library as a student service. With such blatant misrepresentation of an academic service as a student one, there is clearly a need for student services to be defined.

We all know that the registration charge is a fee for attending university. At €1,500, it is hardly pocket change. It is a huge sum, especially for families who fall just over the bracket to qualify for third level grants. University leaders have been open about this fact for quite a while – in particular DCU’s President, Professor Ferdinand von Pronzynski – but this is the first time that UCD’s leader, Dr Hugh Brady, has admitted this. It is also the first time that all university leaders have come together to admit the existence of third-level fees.

Both Redmond and Ó Bróin have estimated that, out of the €1,500 registration fee charged to students, about €500 goes toward true student services. They put forward two alternatives: giving students €1,500 worth of student services or lessening the charge considerably.

In truth, neither of these options are viable. While it was easy to be anti-fees during the boom years, the reality is that universities are in troubled times. UCD alone runs a deficit estimated to be around €15m per annum. While it is undoubtedly morally dubious that funds have been effectively stolen from students, the state that universities are in means that there is little alternative other than to reintroduce third level fees. Clearly, cuts need to be made to all the decorative boards and titles that UCD, in particular, seems to revel in creating. Those at the top should not be earning ludicrous salaries when we are all suffering. Everyone has to pay – students included.

We cannot continue to expect taxpayers to shoulder the burden of our education in a time when everyone is suffering financially. Reform, however, must come from both sides. If students are expected to pay, then real change must occur in universities to make them as efficient as possible. Despite what those at the top may think, this should involve the dissolution of certain positions and boards that are clearly not doing anything of value for staff or students.

The reality is that the situation we are in is unsustainable, and it is time for some transparency to come into universities. It is grossly unethical for funds that are intended to go into student services to be diverted to other sources. Maybe we should be glad, as Redmond and Ó Bróin are, that the university leaders are finally being honest and confirming what we have known for a long time. Perhaps this can usher in a new age of honesty within universities – an age that can continue with the summoning of Minister for Education, Batt O’Keeffe TD, to the committee at his earliest convenience.

In bringing this case to the Joint Oireachtas Committee, the SU leaders have made progress to force authorities to properly define and fund student services. Transparency is what students need, but we need to take stock of our own responsibilities as well as lashing out at those in charge. As soon as students realise this, and university leaders understand the importance of being honest with their students, then third level education can begin to repair itself in times of economic difficulty.

For the majority of students, the cost of living is an unavoidable and pressing concern. Being able to fund the price of fees, books, transport, food and an active social life are some of the many costs that must be budgeted for. However, the single greatest cost that students will face is the price of accommodation, which can be at times a daunting prospect, especially for those who are only starting university.

Finding a place to live when you’ve only just moved out of home is a significant challenge. This is why one of the most attractive options that new students face is the chance to live on campus. At face value, the benefits to living on campus are obvious: immediate access to the campus and its facilities, the chance to live with other students, and to reside in a safe and secure environment.

However, a report compiled by UCD Students’ Union has revealed that the cost of on-campus accommodation in UCD is the most expensive of all the universities in Ireland. A student could be paying up to €5,324 per year for the opportunity to live on-campus compared to €4,916 at Trinity College Dublin, €4,180 at NUI Maynooth and €4,881 at University College Cork. While the price of rent in Dublin city has decreased in recent times, UCD has instead proceeded in the opposite direction by increasing its own by an average of five per cent each year since 2004-05.

We must question what reasoning the university has for increasing these costs. The main reason behind this increase in pricing would usually be pinned down to demand. For a university that hosts over 20,000 students, campus accommodation can only facilitate around 3,000 students, or 15 per cent, of the student population. However, the extortinate prices charged by UCD on-campus accomodation means that it is struggling to fill rooms.

In an economic context, since there is a high demand for a very limited number of places, increasing the prices would make sense as the university would then receive more funds without experiencing a drop in numbers. The fact that the price of accommodation rose again for this term despite the economic problems that the country is currently experiencing only strengthens this theory. Except the plan has failed UCD this year, as places remain unfilled and unwanted due to the high cost and relatively poor amenities.

If the university are following this logic of supply and demand, they are effectively alienating those who may not have the financial means to afford this accommodation and prioritising those who can. Students today are facing a vastly different world than those who attended university five years ago. Personal income has dropped, unemployment has risen, part-time work is becoming harder to find, and a record number of students are now applying to the student welfare fund for financial support.

Students are under more financial pressure than ever before, and maintaining or increasing this level of costs will only exacerbate this problem. Not only will it limit the options for those who can’t afford it, it could mean that the only students who will live there are the ones who can afford to pay such sums – prioritising those who can afford it rather than those who need it and would benefit from it the most. Would it be fair if, for example, a student who suffers from a disability is unable to have access to something they’d consider a necessity and not just a convenience, simply because they are unable to afford it?

Similarly, when one considers that the cost of off-campus accommodation has fallen over the last few months, living elsewhere has become a more feasible option for students who need to be more stringent with their finances. It makes perfect sense to pay for a cheaper option if there is very little difference, if any, between them.

A further deterrent could be the social aspect of campus life. While it is true that living on campus offers residents easy access to the campus and its facilities, the majority of campus facilities are closed at weekends – leaving little benefit to being on campus at that time. Such issues must be considered by the university if campus accommodation is to remain an attractive option for students.

While it is uncertain whether or not the university will increase the cost of accommodation for the coming year, it must clearly review the situation and decide whether charging such amounts will benefit them in the long run. While there are plans to increase the number of spaces on campus, it is clear that UCD is already feeling the financial pressure of being overpriced and lacking in applicants to fill the rooms it already has, without even thinking of the ones it is now building.

“UCD is firmly committed to ensuring personal privacy and compliance with the Data Protection legislation, including the provision of best practice guidelines and procedures in relation to all aspects of Data Protection.”

Or so says the UCD data protection policy. But with yet another data protection blunder hitting the headlines, exactly how seriously can we take this “commitment to privacy”? How many more times must sensitive and confidential student data be made available to all and sundry before the university realises that its processes are vulnerable and half-hearted?

In the past number of years, information such as phone numbers, addresses, student numbers, exam results – and now even degree transcripts – have been made public, either accidentally or by unthinking administrative staff. It would be easy to say that the powers that be have little respect for the privacy of students or the importance of keeping their personal details personal, but the presence of an extensive data protection document would seem to suggest otherwise. There are measures in place to prevent the sort of information leakages we’ve seen time and time again in UCD – measures, it seems, that are not working.

Is it the case that the processes aren’t stringent enough, or are staff just not adhering to the rules? Why, when simply gaining access to the library has become an almost military procedure, can we not get to grips with keeping highly sensitive information private?

Whatever the problem, the more pressing issue is the lax attitude to such breaches. In each case, staff in the relevant schools or departments were oblivious to the dangers of revealing personal information publicly, or did not take enough precautions to prevent leaks. Not only are the staff at ground level not taking the issue seriously, but the powers that be are also less than concerned at the continuous slip-ups.

Both the Students’ Union and the University have placed responsibility for data protection at the feet of students. According to SU President Gary Redmond, students should “take appropriate measures to ensure the protection of their personal details”. A spokesperson for UCD said that due to the increase in online social media, there’s an increased risk of impersonation and identity theft, and so students need to be more protective of sensitive details. “Remain extra vigilant about publishing any personal information in publicly accessible online media which may be added to information obtained from other sources to create an impersonation,” was the UCD line on handing over transcripts to a stranger without questions.

This advice is almost laughable given the nature of slip-ups in the past – a list of names and student numbers was posted on a notice board in an Arts Block corridor just two years ago. A comprehensive list of student names, addresses student numbers and phone numbers posted in a public area of Blackboard. What use is extra vigilance on social networking when the university is not equally vigilant about protecting our details?

Redmond acknowledges that something needs to be done. “The university should review its internal policies to ensure that all procedures were followed in this instance, and if necessary introduce mechanisms to ensure that a breach of this nature does not occur in future,” he said. But the president does not go far enough. If a situation where student transcripts can be ordered, paid for, and collected by anyone other than the student who owns them is part of the “procedure”, then something is seriously amiss with the level and extent of data protection in UCD.

Even when prompted, the staff member in question did not deem it necessary to get any proof of ID from the person collecting the transcript. Why is this acceptable? Why is the university passing the buck, telling students that they should be “more vigilant” with their personal details? It’s clear that until the university starts taking student privacy seriously, our personal information is subject to the whims of its staff.

It has been difficult to ignore the recent fractions within the Students’ Union. The Union’s Postgraduate Officer, Kimberley Foy, has felt the need to step down from her role, after a motion of no confidence in her was raised by her SU sabbatical colleagues at Union Council.

Issues arose when Foy failed to seek election to the postgraduate seat on Governing Authority, as she is mandated to do by the SU constitution. However, citing a heavy workload between her academic programme, her UCDSU position and her job as Environmental Officer with the Union of Students in Ireland, Foy maintains that she had asked the SU Campaigns & Communications Officer, Paddy Ryan, to keep her informed on the matter, a matter Ryan concedes he may have forgotten.

Questions have also been asked of Ryan’s ability to carry out his duties. In advance of a recent protest at Wicklow County Council, class reps reported only being made aware of the event, and being asked to attend, late the previous evening. It has also been reported, though since denied, that Executive Officers have met to discuss asking Ryan for his resignation. With this level of infighting and problems within the SU, shouldn’t students ask for a better and more cohesive service?

UCDSU has seen great progress this year, with more class reps than ever and the defeat for now of third-level fees. However it seems as if, at ground level, basic student needs are not being met, especially from a campaigning point of view. Surely for a protest to be successful, the vast majority of class reps must attend, as well as encouraging other students to accompany them.

When a Campaigns & Communications Officer decides that sixteen hours’ notice is enough for a student to drop everything and attend a protest that has been planned for days, something is very wrong. Students must question whether those they elected are, in fact, doing the jobs they are mandated to do. When organisation of protests is so obviously haphazard and sloppy so far into the sabbatical officers’ terms, something has to change, either in work performance or in the people filling the roles.

Similarly, it seems as if communication has broken down within the SU itself. Foy’s case only serves to highlight this. Her work within the SU, her role in USI, and her postgraduate programme undoubtedly made for a busy schedule, and it cannot be said that she was wrong in asking Ryan, whose position is his full-time job, to help her. Foy expressed shock at the fact that no one had spoken to her prior to the motion and it is not hard to see why. In a mature and official society, officers and colleagues speak to one another and raise problems and issues in a calm manner.

It is not too much for students to expect their representatives to work with each other in a professional manner, so as to ensure the SU provides the best representation and service for its members. Communication and help must be available to all officers within the SU, especially from the sabbatical officers whose job it is to serve students, and to further the Union and its causes.

Witch-hunting and bullying cannot be condoned, but if an officer is not doing their job, it is in the best interest of the students for them to be removed. Students must be vigilant to make sure that their SU does not allow inept people to remain in office simply due to camaraderie on the Union corridor. The Students’ Union is not, and should not be, somewhere for overgrown students to wait out their UCD tenure and avoid graduation. It is a place where students can go for representation and help; for people who want to affect change.

It is our Union; we pay the wages of these sabbatical officers, and we are completely within our rights to stand up and demand a high standard of support and representation. We cannot allow infighting and petty politics to stand in the way of the work a students’ union is supposed to do.

The Bugle, the BB, the Bugler… UCD’s latest publication goes by many names around Belfield, but one thing that remains constant is the curiosity surrounding the fortnightly newsletter and its origins. Last week the Observer sat down – to our surprise – with not one, but two ‘Buglers’, to find out what makes them do what they do.

Many theories have sprung up since the first Bugle appeared on campus around six weeks ago. Perhaps the authors were New Era students, struggling to work their way through four years of photocopying credits, or maybe they were disgruntled students unhappy with SU President Gary Redmond’s initiative to donate unused printer credit to the Student Welfare Fund. It is, in fact, neither of these: one of the ‘Buglers’ has never even been a student in UCD.

It started, according to James*, when the lads read the satire section of the other UCD newspaper, and found it not quite to their taste. “I was reading the Turbine section of the Tribune, and that really gets to me, it just really gets to me. You know down the side of it they have… ah, I don’t even know what to call them, they’re just wrong.” On this impetus, James and his friend John* decided to turn their hand to writing their own satire, and something resembling the Belfield Bugle was born.

The boys had been thinking of starting their newsletter for over a year, but in their own words, “one day we said ‘get the finger out and actually do it’.” Their original intention was to publish the Belfield Bugle every week, but that plan was quickly quashed: “At first, yeah, and then we were like, ‘getting up in the morning is pretty hard’. We have to up pretty early to get these out safely, it’s just an annoyance.” The newsletter has since become a fortnightly event, although it has been conspicuously absent in the past two weeks.

But what makes their publication so different to the other satire pages printed for UCD? “You couldn’t print what we write in a paper… it’s too controversial. It’s probably not the most intelligent stuff we write… it’s probably a bit much sometimes, but that’s what we were looking for.”

This taste for ‘toilet humour’, as they call it themselves, is what has divided the populace of UCD into stringent pro- and anti-Bugle camps. Fiercely protective of their anonymity, John and James have limited their search for feedback strictly to trolling on boards.ie. “90 per cent of Boards is negative; the negative comments make us laugh even harder than the positive ones, some of the  negative comments are just absolutely brilliant. The last one I saw was brilliant – some guy was like, ‘Oh, I thought the Bugle was satire’, and some other guy just went off the handle, ‘The Bugle is most definitely not satire’.”

That much of the response to their material is negative didn’t come as a surprise to the duo, who say they understood from the beginning that most people wouldn’t understand their own unique brand of humour. They haven’t set out to be wildly popular; instead they merely hope to spread some laughs: “If one or two people laugh at it in the morning when they’re sitting in lectures, that’s all we want.”

Asked where they get their information, the reply is succinct and refreshingly honest: “Well, most of it’s made up, like! And to be honest, we don’t even know most of the people we’re writing about, we only write about them because they’re well known figures within the college, ‘cos we figured that will get the most attention. Basically we’re like two ADHD children looking for attention.”

They have come to regret some of their early content decisions. The first edition of the Bugle was hot off the photocopier when it reached UCD, and the boys say they regret having printed some of the comments made about Jonny Cosgrove. “That was probably our biggest mistake… we probably hurt Jonny’s feelings. The part where we call him a [...], that was too much, I’ll apologise for that. If you want to put that in, if Jonny’s reading, I apologise for that.”

As for the other infamous article regarding an SU staff officer, the link was completly unintentional. “I didn’t know that!” James comments, when the Observer informs him that the name used matched one of the SU staff. “It’s just a name; it could have been Phil Jones or anything. Well, there’s an absolute stroke of luck! You can tell him it was nothing personal.”

Intentional or otherwise, their writing has ruffled many feathers within the Students’ Union corridor. With the possible exception of Donnacha Ó Súilleabháin, the sabbatical officers have not come out well in the Bugle. In fact, Gary Redmond has threatened to scouring CCTV footage of the library building, in an attempt to identify the Buglers. “Yeah, we read that! It’s just a waste of money, like, why would they bother looking at the security cameras, why wouldn’t they put the money to good use like? That’s not what the security cameras are there for, they’re there for the protection of the students and the staff, not to be looking for… us! That’s ridiculous.”

Despite this, the lads still take precautions before distributing the Bugle around campus. They change their appearances every week, wearing different clothes, bringing different coloured bags, and getting in and out of Belfield as quickly as possible.

The commercial side of the Bugle is perhaps the one aspect students haven’t talked about since it’s inception. The Buglers have been very frugal with their production: so far 1,500 copies of the Belfield Bugle have been printed, at a cost of only €50 in total. John declined to comment on the source of their printing, but did say that it was an off-campus operation.

The copy writing itself is a weekend enterprise, as both John and James work during the week; however John is quick to dispel any images of the lads locked in a windowless room, huddled over typewriters for hours on end. “It’s five minutes to write them up, like, then you just have to make the changes. A lot of the time is just sitting there at the printer waiting for all the copies.” At this point, James chips in with “I wrote it in work one day.”

As for the name, it was a natural choice, according to James. They had toyed with the idea of the ‘College Chronicle’, but the ‘Belfield Bugle’ won out in the end and was rapidly constructed using Google Images and some Pritt Stick.

Alas, the boys’ partnership will come to a premature end shotly, as John emigrates to Australia within a few days of this article being published. James has vowed to continue without him, though unsure whether he will seek a new co-author. As yet there are no plans to expand the Bugle to a four – or even two-page – newsletter, as James feels that “too many people are going to start knowing about it”, and their beloved and necessary anonymity will disappear. John has said he will continue to contribute via email, and they already have in their sights new material for the Bugle.

“We’ve pretty much left Aidan O’Dea alone. That thing where Gary came out with the expenses for last year… d’ya know there was expenditures that shouldn’t have been made? That kind of stuff is good, you can come up with a story for that. We got his mobile number on Facebook. He adds anyone!”

There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’; it’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, for the times, they are a-changin’. – Bob Dylan

When Bob Dylan wrote this timeless masterpiece of discontent in the autumn of 1963, the world was presumably a much different place to the technocratic Babylon it is in the modern age. The sixties, as much as an era of flower power and societal liberation, was a decade of conflict, most notably in 1968 when the generation of Baby Boomer offspring led a series of international student demonstrations in protest at – among other things – the Vietnam war, political upheaval in western Europe, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Cuban missile crisis and the slow progress of the African independence movement. No matter where one looked, people were angry, and taking to the streets to vent it.

The undefeatable, sturdy spirit of rebellion embodied in Dylan’s work has largely disappeared from society, and from the student political scene, in the forty years since. While student groups and youth political parties still hold demonstrations to display public protest, the extent to which they permeate the national consciousness – and indeed, the level of passion and support they enjoy – has been on the continual wane for decades now.

UCD Students’ Union’s occupation of the Wicklow County Council offices last Friday, in protest at the delay in processing and issuing the payment of maintenance grants, is an opportune example of why the politics of demonstration enjoy limited appeal – and, more importantly, limited effect – in the modern world. The SU’s desire to apply the momentum gained by the defeat (for now) of third level tuition fees was totally sound, as was the motivation behind the stunt: maintenance grants are, and for years have been, painstakingly slow in being issued. Students cannot afford to live on borrowed time – and borrowed money – while their native county council shuffles through the growing pile of grant applications as slovenly as can be gotten away with.

There is no small irony, though, that the protest reached its zenith as the protestors moved to occupy the council chambers, where the elected representatives of the people of Wicklow meet to argue and agree upon how to best serve their peoples’ needs. It is in the council chambers and boardrooms that decisions are now made, and though the pace at which they operate may frustrate students and their leaders, patience is needed. Direct demos are not without their merits, but the student movement would likely be better served by a small degree of restraint in the aftermath of such a major victory, rather than immediately returning to the offensive.

It would be blasé and easy to take issue with the poor attendance at the protest; the fact that when the SU Council has more reps than ever before that only fifty students – many of them, it must be conceded, being Union officers rather than Wicklow constituents – felt sufficiently motivated to attend the occupation is not one that deserves criticism. But the lesson to be borne in mind is that the purpose of the mass protests of yore was simply to earn a seat at the boardroom table. When those seats have been won, the responsibility of the student movement is to exert its boardroom influence as best it can. What’s seldom is wonderful; the reason the demonstrations against pensioners being denied medical cards were so effective is because to see older people on the streets is rare. Students would do well to show similar moderation.

The world of 2009 is a far different one to the world of 1968. When once, in less bureaucratic times, decisions could be made by hurling bricks, chanting ideologies or flinging petrol bombs, the mob justice of old has been quietly shelved and superseded by the politics of the boardroom. Society now is a far more bureaucratic entity than forty years ago; and while this of course has its negative connotations, it has offered society’s many subgroups – students crucially included amongst them – the chance to sit at the table where the decisions are made, and to have their say at every step of the process.

Third level fees were not beaten on the streets, but in the boardroom where the Programme for Government was agreed. The big decisions of the future will be made in similar places, and the student movement ought to remember just what their predecessors of Bob Dylan’s era were fighting for.