FELIX

No wonder the bars are one of the major source of income; with continued price rises, how can they not be?

Why would I get a pint of improperly poured ale in a plastic cup from the Union when I could go to one of the local pubs and buy a pint of quality ale for the same price, not have to listen to cretinous music or be served by rude and ill-trained staff, and what's more - I'd get it in a fecking pint glass.

The union has to have its upsides - it's full of shit tables and chairs, shit music and shitloads of randy men trying to pull from a handful of sub-par bitches - one of the upsides should be the prices, why else would I go there?

And to return to my initial point - HOW HARD IS IT TO GET A PINT OF ALE RIGHT?

*draught

@Spelliterate: Excellent spot. It has been corrected (while I attempt to keep my eyelids open as I sort through a whole bunch of copies of Felix).

Benton, people could not buy there due to increased prices, leading to less sales leading to less profits. Imperial student my hairy arse. I think nubert is doing a good jobs and has explained it well. Finally scrapping entry fees, worth a small price hike which is clearly unavoidable anyway.

Can we see video evidence of a speed test to prove they are faster at pouring a pint? Will there be enough bar staff to pour these "faster pints"?

@AnonyMouse they definitely are faster - I work there so can attest to this

I agree with Oli, so I'm going to look at what this new money can be spent on, given its going to be reinvested (or at least you'd hope, according to the author)-

1. Does this rise in prices mean that the cheap keg nights for Clubs and Socs will come back? The bars have markedly increased profits (they were at £50k in 2010-11 before price rises and the scrapping of these 'costly exercises') due to the olympics audience, euro 2012 etc. so I'd like to see some of this being seen by the students as cheap booze/better nights/investment in entertainments, acts and fun rather than in summer-ball debt repayment or new staff members (like one whose self-confessed main job is telling a rag chair what to do).

2. Or maybe not cutting club budgets by 10% using an incorrectly calculated underspend (i.e. a Colin-in-last-article-level of not being able to add, subtract, multiply and divide as you'd expect from a medic, like...) by last year's least favourite sabbatical officer as an excuse.

Jack, you really do come across as a complete idiot.

1. If the price rises are to cover costs, the level of profit should stay the say. If this profit is already going to clubs, etc. then we assume that will continue to happen in equal volumes.
As for "investment," have you seen the bars? They can't have been cheap and I bet they still have to pay them off as it would be sensible to take loans, depreciate the costs, etc.

2. I think many people would agree that is it wrong to subsidise alcohol, so suggesting "cheap booze" is again idiotic. The Union should support activities of all people, including those who don't drink.

3. Clubs always underspend and get a really big amount from the Union. I did my first degree at the University of Bath where the amount spent on Clubs was around 25% of what ICU spends on them. You should be celebrating the generosity!

http://issuu.com/icunion/docs/annual_report_11/27

So the Union lost £193k in 2010/11 and £134k in 2009/10. Yes. £50k profit my arse. Where do you pull these figures out of Hewitt? The RAG profits for this year? Oh no, wait, they made how much? £0. Yes...

I do however (begrudgingly) agree with him that I hope they bring back something better for clubs and societies to run bar nights, they have gone downhill consistently in the last 4 years.

Should start listening to what students want and care about or satisfaction will remain low.

Jack Hewitt, you did nothing for the Union - what do you know?

Perhaps if we were treated as adults, rather than patronised and babysat (as far as drinking goes) then Union Bar nights may actually be worth going to.

We may as well give up this whole Student Union 'democracy' lark if we're just going to let the Daily Mail and the Government's anti-alcohol agenda dictate to us.

Stand up for us for a change. Then maybe we won't begrudge the odd 20p rise.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23764227.jpg

@Christopher Kaye

Abiding by licensing laws and responding to a contract change (as Nubert has explained) isn't patronising.

Deciding on behalf of all female students, as well as all BME and LGBT students if I recall your letter in Felix last term correctly, that they do not require representation in terms of welfare on the other hand... That could be seen as rather patronising. I find it interesting that you're asking the Union to 'stand up for us for a change' when you actively campaigned to get rid of representation.

#themoreyouknow

@nice try: I'm not sure what's more gratifying:

A) the number of Imperial women who've approached me to say they voted for me because they were fed up of being patronised by self-styled 'feminists';

or

B) the fact that, over 2 months on, feathers are still clearly very ruffled

#NotHidingBehindPseudonyms

you're a beg-friend and the simple fact you attempted to make a mockery of a serious election is just disgusting - it was disgusting the union let you run in the first place.

Regarding the decisions, Nubert did the right thing, this is way better than further cuts to societies that are struggling. It is all about weighing the pros and cons, I think the cons of the impact to other areas of the union should the price of a pint does not increase is way greater than you paying 20p more. Stop the Butt Hurt.

#WelcomeToICU

#ItCanBeABitchFestSometimes

Can I just ask was the caption on the photo changed AFTER this was published.

If so, good banter.