Hetherington occupation cost to University: £10,000

The Hetherington Research Club occupation, in place since the beginning of February, has run up costs of almost £10,000 to Glasgow University

Nick Sikora
Guardian Exclusive

The Hetherington Research Club (HRC) occupation has cost Glasgow University almost £10,000 over the course of its three-month history, Guardian can reveal.

The occupation, which is provided with free electricity and washing facilities as a result of concessions made by University management, has resulted in expenses totalling almost £1,000 in utilities for every month the occupation runs and at least £3,500 in required campus security presence, according to information contained in documents released to the Guardian under a Freedom of Information request.

415 extra man-hours were logged by campus security during February and March as a result of security concerns attributable to the occupation and its associated protests, whilst elsewhere costs range from a one-off payment of £98 for a plumber to more than £100 every week for the building’s electricity bills.

In total, the HRC occupation has incurred running costs of around £6,500 to the University in the three months since the occupation began on February 1st of this year, a number that will grow as the student demonstration continues.

Protective boards inside the Gilbert Scott Building, put in place as part of a maintenance project on the building, were scrawled with graffiti by protestors. Photo: Olivia Vitazkova

Meanwhile, University estimates state that the cost of repairing damage to the 140-year-old Gilbert Scott Building following March 22, when a number of occupation members broke into the main building and forced their way through locked doors in a search for Principal Muscatelli’s office, may reach as high as £2,500.

Locks on several doors were broken by demonstrators and a number of temporary fixtures inside the building were scrawled with anti-management graffiti during the incident, while at least one window was smashed in clashes between campus security and demonstrators.

Other costs included repairing damage to University property in the Arts and Humanities building adjacent to the HRC, which was broken into from the Hetherington and vandalised on two separate occasions in the month of February. Occupiers later denied responsibility for the damage whilst offering to pay for repairs, although management denied this request.

A spokesman for the University stated that whilst they are willing to accommodate protests made by students on University property, the costs incurred by the demonstration were regrettable.

He said: “At a time of tight budget constraints, it is unfortunate that the University has incurred unforeseen costs as a result of the student occupation of the Hetherington Building. While the University respects students’ right to protest, we deplore costs incurred through damage to the fabric of buildings during recent associated protests.

“Since the occupation began, the University has been in an ongoing dialogue with the students to bring the protest to a peaceful conclusion.”

The released figures do not include the cost of the police presence during the events of March 22, in which an attempted eviction from the Hetherington building eventually included the use of a police helicopter, dog teams and up to 80 officers on the ground.

While Strathclyde Police have not yet released details of the costs incurred through the attempted eviction, the combined costs to both the University and Strathclyde Police are thought to push public expenses related to the HRC occupation into the region of several tens of thousands of pounds.

Student bodies condemned Strathclyde Police in the aftermath of the March 22 incident, with SRC President Tommy Gore branding the costly police response as ‘unacceptable’, ‘unjustifiable’ and ‘inappropriate’. Three protestors were arrested at their homes in the days following the eviction, but all charges were later dropped.

In a statement made to the Guardian, occupants of the HRC claimed that costs involved in hosting the demonstration were justifiable in light of the significance of the protested cuts to public services, whilst asserting that some of the University expenses would have been incurred regardless.

It said: “When the Hetherington was re-opened we found the lights on and the heating turned up full. These costs would have been paid whether or not we were in the building, and were being paid for a year by the University while they left the building empty.

“With the promises made recently by all major political parties at Holyrood concerning University funding in the run-up to the election, and in light of the broken promises at Westminster, it is more important than ever that students and other members of the community demonstrate that they will hold those making cuts and destroying our services and society to account.

“The day that we ban political protest because some claim it is too expensive is the day we can no longer call ourselves a democracy.”

The Hetherington Occupation, which was created to present opposition to cuts in public services at the University and across the country as a whole, has received support from union organisations such as the UCU and STUC, and individual figures such as activist Ken Loach and national Makar, Liz Lochhead.

HRC occupiers, who have now staged the longest-running University occupation in recent history, have no plans to discontinue their activities.

 

Posted on April 25, 2011

 

 

 

  • butterflykaia

    If the University allowed the Hetherington to re-open as a co-operative – a financially viable option which was presented by the Hetherington staff and rejected by the University Court, the profit made would cover this cost.

    • Dave

      Tell us how it would be financially viable? The whole reason HRC closed was because it wasn't financially viable.

      • D N

        *according to University Court.

  • Opinion, I have one

    This article is full of nonsense, you've really excelled yourselves this time Guardian.

    "The occupation, which is provided with free electricity and washing facilities" – washing facilities??? where?? Wtf, untrue

    "at least £3,500 in required campus security presence – Absolute lies. For the first week of the occupation there was a security guard outside. Beyond that the occupation have found it near impossible to get security to turn up when required due to people attacking occupants, so the idea that they have had extra staff in to monitor what's going on is utter nonsense. Any security guard that has been there and been paid was always going to be there, the uni are pulling your leg here.

    "Other costs included repairing damage to University property in the Arts and Humanities building adjacent to the HRC, which was broken into from the Hetherington and vandalised on two separate occasions in the month of February." – The break ins have been the fault of the GU Labour club and the GUU board respectively, where's their 'look how much these troublemakers cost' article?

    "Meanwhile, University estimates state that the cost of repairing damage to the 140-year-old Gilbert Scott Building following March 22, when a number of occupation members broke into the main building and forced their way through locked doors in a search for Principal Muscatelli’s office, may reach as high as £2,500." – obvious bollocks, go down to B&Q and see how much a padlock costs.

    "Locks on several doors were broken by demonstrators and a number of temporary fixtures inside the building were scrawled with anti-management graffiti during the incident, while at least one window was smashed in clashes between campus security and demonstrators." – one window broken by security, and one bit of plyboard with some pen on it. WOW. The window, broken *by security* I imagine doesn't cost much for the uni to fix, and plyboard is plyboard. That costs the uni nothing to 'repair', because there's nothing to 'repair' and they'll have spent nothing.

    "The released figures do not include the cost of the police presence during the events of March 22, in which an attempted eviction from the Hetherington building eventually included the use of a police helicopter, dog teams and up to 80 officers on the ground." – so police costs, which are nothing to do with the occupation, are relevant to this article how?

    " whilst elsewhere costs range from a one-off payment of £98 for a plumber to more than £100 every week for the building’s electricity bills." – range from?? those are the *only* two costs I can think of. £98 to fix dodgy plumbing, which the uni offered to pay for – dodgy plumbing'll happen when you leave a building to rot for a year, so the uni would have had to pay that at some point unless they planned to keep the building permanently in disrepair, so that's really not an occupation cost. And the electricity bills stuff has been dealt with in the article, but £100 is the most unrealistic number I've ever heard, it's quite hilarious.

    And here's the biggest lie of all -

    "“Since the occupation began, the University has been in an ongoing dialogue with the students to bring the protest to a peaceful conclusion.”"

    • Someone who can coun

      Dear above,

      If the cost is so low, please pay this yourself. Stop ruining other students educations by wasting money and space (and arguably oxygen). If you think your freegan cooperative could would actually cover £10,000 – you clearly can't count and are not doing economics/business! Additionally, the actions of you plebians have now resulted in an inquiry that will cost far more to the uni resulting from legal fees to listen to your juvenile socialist drivel!

      Cheers

      • Logic

        If a group other than the occupation decides to spend money on an inquiry, on security or on heating a building for a year and then allowing it to remain open, then those are not costs of the occupation.

        Thank you.

        • Someone who can coun

          Are you actually that simplistic? The flaws in your 'logic' are quite worrying. I do hope you aren't doing philosophy.

          • Logic

            Senior Management opened an inquiry.

            How are the costs of this attributable to the occupation/occupiers?

      • count Count

        Dear someone who claims can count.

        It is not clear what is it that you counted. You repeat the approximated figure of £10,000 because apparently you did not actually bother tu sum the numbers that appear in the article. I myself can count 6 facts from the article that are disputed, and 0 facts you are actually able to confirm.

        In what comes to counting, I am afraid that your education is already ruined, so do not worry too much about it. Enjoy your life away from numbers instead.

        Cheers

        • John

          I'm just glad you didn't claim to be someone that could spell/write, count Count! That is of course, in addition to your lack of numerical skills…

          • count Count

            Sorry about the typo, John. But please do enlighten us with the reason that makes you add my lack of numerical skills to your list of causes of joy.

  • Craig Charles

    @butterflykaia, the Hetherington was closed initially because it wasn't a financially viable entity and mis-management. The occupiers have not presented the university with a practical business plan of any sort. I can only hope that the Hetherington occupiers can see the irony of what they are striving to achieve and leave the premises. The occupation is not conducive to genuine debate with the SMG, is preventing progress, and the ties to communist/socialist groups isolates them from representing the vast majority of the Gilmorehill.

  • And I'm not eve

    What a bunch of inflammatory lies, you should be ashamed of yourself Nick Sikora.

  • Poor Journalism

    The Guardian jumps from articles on 'shocking campus antics' to 'shocking campus expenses'.

    It's simply shocking hyperbolic journalism.

    It is too much to ask for research and reporting that doesn't simply play into campus feuds?

    • http://nah Nah

      "The Guardian jumps from articles on 'shocking campus antics’ to ‘shocking campus expenses’.

      It’s simply shocking hyperbolic journalism."

      To be fair, the journalist doesn't actually say "shocking" in the article. There's only person using that word on this page…

      • Poor Journalism

        That is true.

        However, the article is constructed to shock.

        The headline claim is as sensationalist as it is dubious.

        • http://nah Nah

          I wouldn't say the headline was dubious. If it read "Uni hit by 10k bill for Free Hetherington activities" then yeah, it would be sensationalist. Instead, it just says the total their research came to.

          However, I would agree that what the report says is dubious. If it revealed it's sources so we could make up our own minds it would be nice. Instead, you could say anything and pass it as fact. I could say the protest cost the police £512.56 in fuel for the unnecessary helicopter, for instance. So aye, I'll only believe the figures when I see them.

          • David N

            I believe the plumbing problem was due to the guys who set of the fire alarm deciding to stage a protest of their own by stripping naked and blocking the toilets (very articulate political debate that).

            Would have been a bigger bill payable to Lockheed Martin if they'd taken some other advice and firebombed the place.

          • John

            Actually, the plumbing bill was due to you being so full of sh*t

        • John

          Your name is pretty apt. You would make a poor journalist if this is ''sensationalist''.

          • http://nah Nah

            "I wouldn’t say the headline was dubious"

            I meant to say 'sensationalist' there, not 'dubious'. My bad.

  • http://www.glasgowguardian.co.uk Glasgow Guardian Edi

    Please note that whilst we encourage debate, comments deemed spam or abusive will be edited or deleted. Thank you.

  • Jennifer

    Absolute nonsense. Censoring myself for your benefit, because the expletives aren't useful. Thanks for pandering to sensationalist bullish*t, Guardian. Maybe we'll ask the Daily Mail to stick their oar in too.

  • Freedom of Informati

    At what cost to the University was the handling of your Freedom of Information request?

  • -

    Jennifer, stop talking such nonsense. Swear words are the resort of those who cannot articulate themselves by other means. As a member of the communist elite, you should fully be aware of the power of censorship! Comrade, we must encourage it to make sure the Bourgeise to not dilute our message. Sensationalism and not letting the facts get in the way of a good story have been part of our tools from day one.

    LONG LIVE THE OCCUPATION!

    VIVA LA RESISTANCE!!!!

  • Seriously?

    I think the point is that the occupation is costing the university money whilst complaining about the university not having enough money. Why can't the occupiers pay their own way?

    • John

      Easy! No Jobs! Scroungers avoiding their rent.

      • David N

        Fancy these odds?

        Record 20% of young people are now unemployed.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357512/A

        How come it always turns into a debate about these minor issues? People are avoiding the major problems: does anyone really believe austerity is going to make our lives better?

        • John

          I have a job.

          • John

            I should add, I am self-supporting and self-funded off my own back and do not come from a wealthy stock.

          • David N

            I'm glad for you, some people are not so fortunate. I also have a job.

            Are you saying that everyone who doesn't have a job is a failure?

  • Is the GU Guardian b

    I don't know how many times it has to be said that the window broken during the protest in the cloisters was broken by a member of campus security – this information comes directly from the head of security – so it was not a 'cost incurred' by the occupation.

    I wonder how much of this cost was due to the university boarding up the Hetherington after the eviction, then having to pay a joiner to fix the damage the boarding up caused when the Hetherington was given back to the occupiers.

    Also, if by "associated protests" you mean the 3000 students who marched against course closures (many of whom were just concerned students, not necessarily part of the occupation) then I have a solution – don't cut courses!

    This article is a huge journalism fail. Long may the occupation continue.

    • John

      Had the occupation not occurred then none of these costs would have been incurred. You have achieved nothing but a bill that will actually harm your cause – making cuts an EVEN MORE financially necessary option. HUGE PROTEST FAIL.

      • Keyboard Warriors

        John, I can imagine you to be one of those eternal critics who likes to dismiss the actions and efforts of others – mainly online or with your friends.

        There's nothing entirely wrong with that.

        However, supporting such a prevailing cynicism doesn't offer much hope.

        Inaction is easy but depressing.

  • Graham Baines

    It probably is a bit of an exaggeration and you can pick holes in different aspects of the argument; however, even the most ardent supporter of the occupation wouldn't deny that it has carried some cost to the university. If the university is paying the relevant utility bills then that's a cost, for instance – I'm aware that there were still some electric and gas costs associated with the building when it was empty, but these costs are obviously higher when it's full of people and hosting events.

    Maybe instead of us all arguing about who broke which window, or how much a padlock costs, GUO could provide their own research on how much they think the occupation has cost the university? If £10,000 is too much, then what is the actual cost?

    • T K

      What about the profit to the university of all the foreign students who are attracted to a place with lively political debate (and, currently, good weather)? If I'd known all this was going to happen Glasgow wouldn't have been my 2nd choice :P .

      People don't go to the unions because they can get pissed at the supermarket for less. They don't get involved in student politics because its the same old career politicians talking boring rubbish and going to dinner with management and rectors. Occupations, debate, politics on campus… at least its not boring. Worth a bit of money, no?

      • Graham Baines

        That's the argument being made by GUO – that their occupation is worth the money. However whilst that might be enough to satisfy the occupiers, for other students the actual cost is quite important. This article is claiming it's £10,000, but what is the cost according to the occupiers?

        I think before you decide whether something is "worth a bit of money" you have to work out how much money it is you're talking about.

    • Graham equals sense!

      They should work out the heating bills and raise the cash to pay them.

      The University can let it be a community, cooperative space.

      Everyone lives happily ever after.

    • Doesn't the SMG

      Fair request, to ask GUO to provide their own research on costs. However, in oreder to do so, the uni management would have to provide them with information on electricity/gas bills specific to the Hetherington building. Since the management is so happy to feed these lies to the GUGuardian (which in this article has not backed up any of its claims with actual evidence), do you really think they're likely to provide this information?

      £10, 000 is obviously an unfair figure- it seems to be hugely exaggerating most of the costs mentioned, and is counting in costs which GUO cannot be held accountable for. Management would obviously rather try and spread lies like this about GUO- as it has done in the past- than release actual figures. Same as it would rather keep uni staff in a constant state of panic and confusion (not that it's managed to) than release actual figures on the uni's debts and on course costs.

      • Doesn't the SMG

        Moreover, part of the point of the occupation is to protest against the closure of the old Hetherington Research Club (the post-grad and staff union), which they argue the uni should be paying to keep open. If the occupation has cost the uni money, in re-opening this social space, it's money that, arguably, they should have been paying for this social space anyway.

        Some students may not agree that the uni should be paying to provide a social space for staff and post-grads, but perhaps they should stop being so selfish. What do the staff and post-grads want? Many of them have been very supportive of the occupation, and that's not surprising when you consider that the HRC had around 1000 members at the time of its closure.

  • Occupier

    Can the GU Guardian please provide a link to the FOI request?

    The only FOI request on whatdotheyknow.com relating to costs incurred by the Hetherington occupation states that:

    "The University does not hold an analysis of costs of the facilities provided and is not aware of any other public authority that could respond to your request."

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/66212/respo

    • FOI foe

      OUCH!!!

  • Normal person…

    @butterflykaia

    The Hetherington was closed for a number of reasons, which I wont go into, other than to say that the University had to cover their spiraling debts.

    The business plan which was presented to the University, which i read, was based on arbitrary projections of sales which vastly exceeded those which had been achieved previously to the buildings closure; although this was near imposible to tell as the building had been operating without financial accounts for some time (leading to a police investigation).

    As it happens I think that what the occupation are doing, outside of the idiocy shown by certain members during the attempted eviction and in the aftermath, has become rather positive, and not a bad idea. I think that the educational lectures are a great idea, and that the positive attention which has been given to the occupation from the notable vistors is great also. However, i dont see the need for those involved to hold up the re development of the building, and to cause ever increasing costs, be them direct (heat, power, security, criminal damage), or indirect (policing of eviction (which wouldnt have been necessary if you had left when asked), cost of investigation into eviction etc.). There are plenty of rooms in which you can hold these lectures, hold meetings of the anti cuts movement, and generaly talk about whatever it is you talk about inside the Free Heth. Book a room in a Union, its free! you might even get them onside that way.

    I appreciate you have some members of staff onside (minority), and that you also have some students listening to you as well (vast minority), but the majority still feel alienated from the anti cuts movement as a result of what you are doing; including myself.

    I would hazard a guess that if you were to make it compulsory that those who enter the occupation were matriculated students here at the University of Glasgow, you would be fairly thin on the ground.

    • T K

      But isn't the symbol of the occupation something different to holding an event in a Union (which by the way, are not allowed to act 'politically', something that would have been inconcievable until the neo-liberal crap that is Blairism)? It's the fact that a building is being held on a directly political remit (and I am always surprised by how there has been no visible poltical party at the fore) against what is being inflicted on this country that makes it important? Would the SNP and Labour tell these lies about "no fees" if it wasn't for this sort of protest?

      Also, someone told me that the re-development into language labs is predicated on the consultation about Modern Languages going management's way. The need for the Hetherington pre-empts the consultation! Its a downgrade for them in terms of space, and they don't want it.

      It wouldn't work there, because nothing is at risk. Universities are becoming business schools and research departments for corporations. The great Liberal tradition Clegg et al would be turning in their graves! As would Boyd Orr, Adam Smith etc. The whole idea of education is being torn up.

      • T K

        p.s. I'm surprised the GUU and QMU haven't been renamed "Student Associations". The SRC is already politically castrated.

      • Normal person…

        I'm not sure I understand what you mean by risk?

        • T K

          I mean that the Unions can't be seen to contradict the management line, and are unwilling to stick their necks out for something as petty as the quality of education at Glasgow Uni. (The "my job is to manage the Union" line). The difference with an occupation is that it is an argument on its own terms, rather than having its management approved by University employees etc.

          The occupiers, at the very least, have put their degrees and, after the involvement of the police, their future careers and possibly liberty at risk. None of the groups that complain so much seem to have even raised their voices…

          • Graham Baines

            On the last paragraph… I think we've long passed the point at which anyone viewed this occupation as some grand altruistic enterprise to protect other people's interests. You can support or oppose the occupation, but let's stop pretending that the protesters don't get something out of this as well – just as members of the SRC, GUU and QMU get something out of their positions.

            It's not a question of motivation, it's a question of tactics. The more established representative bodies simply have a different method for defending the interests of students.

    • Doesn't the SMG

      @Normal person.

      The occupation cannot be blamed for the costs of the police eviction, even indirectly. Whatever you think of the occupation, that eviction was illegal, and seriously over-manned. Strathclyde police acted stupidly. They're only whinging about how much it cost them because they know they looked stupid.

      Also, if we're going to keep talking about the uni's debts, does anyone have *any* evidence of these debts? The occupation is not making the uni's financial crisis worse by way of heating bills, because there is no financial crisis. No one has been provided with any evidence of any such thing, they've just been sent a few ambiguous and inconsistent emails from David Newall. The SMG is using the recession as an excuse to make the cuts to courses that it wants to makes. Some of them have been planned for several years, and they are the same cuts the principal Muscatelli tried to make at herriot watt a few years earlier. Did anyone attend the open meeting? They kept talking about finances, then when it was pointed out that their solution to the supposed financial crisis didn't make any sense, as it's based on outdated figures that no longer apply, they said it wasn't about finances! And it isn't about finances- it's about turning this uni into a business.

      There's been the same lack of transparency in their plans for re-development. The SMG has talked about several different plans for the re-development of the Hetherington building, none of which staff have actually been consulted on. One of these plans (I think this is the line they're going with now) is to turn into space for the music department. They've made out this will be extra space- it is in fact going to be less, as they're just going to move music from their larger building, a move the music department has said it does not want.

      And where's your evidence that it's only a minority of staff that support the occupation? I've heard from members of staff that it's definitely a majority.

      The SMG does not provide us with evidence! There is no transparency!

  • Angry

    Poor journalism and pedantry over the actual figure aside, the occupiers should have the sum total of the debt divided amongst them and not be allowed to Graduate until they have paid it back, a la library book fines. Yes, there are fixed and other costs that would have been incurred regardless of the occupation but this University has an accountancy department that would be able to work such things out in 5 minutes.

    So a security Guard smashed the window – he wouldn't have been in that situation if the protestors had not been there searching for (and failing to find,) the Principles office. Ergo, the protestors/occupiers were the cause of those costs.

    As for the argument that vandalising plyboard is okay because it costs so little is absolute nonsense – criminality is not excusable on the grounds of minimal cost, or being apparently 'victimless'. That is a similar argument to: 'Its okay to "kettle" Aaron Porter because he's a bad, bad man.' Ridiculous.

    • We have the right to

      People have the right to peaceful protest. They cannot be expected to pay costs that are a result of reaction to the protest. That is not how it works. It's disgusting that you care so little for people's right to protest, which is already under threat.

      And can you prove writing on plyboard is a crime? It hardly counts as damaging property, does it.

      You need to have a look at the laws that are actually in place, before you try and talk about them.

  • Hooda Thunkette

    Did you FOI how much the Uni had been spending at keeping the building closed- with the lights on, the heating permanently at a sweltering temperature and bar pumps still chuntering away in the basement?

    That'd be more 'man bites dog'….

  • JT

    I think it is a shame that mature students/postgrads have lost a place, but this whole thing is stupid.

    The HRC is not an integral part of student life in Glasgow. It has tried and failed to promote itself in the past, which is unfortunate. If the venture was lucrative, it would not have shut down. However, if they could make a new venture that can be more inclusive, that can compete against the other unions, then that would be great.

    But at the end of the day, in this current climate, I doubt the University will rescind their decision. Repeating what they did before would only make a loss, which the University is not obliged to make. Further, the occupation of the HRC is merely a reactionary movement. Where were they BEFORE it had to close? I'm sure a significant proportion of their consumer spending could have been made there. And if they had, and it was still making a loss…well…what would change now?

    Further, there ARE departments that are closing/merging too. There is MORE at stake, however, the nature of academia is research and teaching follows money. Its easy to target people for their salaries. But e.g. in 1st year, a Scottish student's cost per lecture is like £5 if their paid fees is about £1500. In a week many students may spend more than that in pubs. I sure did.

    The way in which education is funded needs to change. The trial and error towards it, will be painful, very painful. But until we can sustain both staff and students numbers, cuts will happen. People need to appreciate money needs to come from somewhere, to fund things. IMO until the damages (which could be inflated!) are paid, the University would not entertain the dream of funding the HRC. The occupiers have not been tactical enough, to generate meaningful dialogue to those that may grant their wish. The new principal would lose his job at agreeing to that! Just as the HRC people would disband if they just accepted they had no legitimacy to occupy the HRC.

  • Obey/Resist

    Occupation is a political act.

    It is an end in itself and not simply the means to procure some other end. It should not be considered a provisional measure, but the overdue arrival of a permanent new fixture.

    Occupation represents a redrawing of the boundaries of authoritarian control.

    It is reclaiming physical space from the cold dead jaws of a shark-eyed dystopian bureaucracy and breathing sweet vibrant life back into it.

    It is a living protest against a culture of unquestioning obedience to banal greed, a challenge to vested interests by virtue of its very existence.

    Haters gon' hate,

    Occupy On.

  • http://fotozine.eu Rae Merrill

    The costs should be added to every student's fees, that way there is unlikely to be a repeat of the vandalism since the miscreants wont be popular with the other students on campus.

  • Daniel

    I fucking hate student socialists. If you're so keen to help the poorer elements of the community why don't you stop wasting tax-payers money reading dross subjects like History of Art and allow the huge subsidies you receive to go to public services such as the NHS?

    Higher education is a privilege, not a right.