SUSU has plans to scrap the Safety Bus that shuttles drunken students home after a night out in the Bevois Valley.
If the motion passes, the Portswood service will be replaced by “trained staff” working outside the clubs to help students get home.
Nightclubs in Bevois Valley (Jesters and Sobar) are taking advantage of the Portswood Safety Bus service by utilising it to negate their duty of care to their customers; negatively impacting upon the welfare of our members.
They confirm that the Safety Bus that runs from campus until late at night will still run and will not be affected by the motion.
The scheme suggests replacing the Safety Bus by ensuring that:
Support personnel are present outside the Nightclubs in Bevois Valley on the regular student nights to ensure students are feeling safe and can get home safely, with the ability to arrange for transport for vulnerable students where this is required and where no other option is available.
When told the service was likely to be scrapped, Nev, bouncer at Sobar, one of the clubs which benefit from the Portswood Safety Bus, said:
This service is a massive help, because sometimes, the taxis will not take them. They just leave them. Before, I’ve even paid both this bus and taxis to take people home, because you can’t leave them. We’ve paid for people to get home and I know that Jesters has done the same.
If they do stop doing it I think we would perhaps consider, on our busy nights, getting a private vehicle. I think what they fail to realise is that students predrink full stop.
Students will always predrink
His sentiment was echoed by Nick Green, who runs Jesters:
Students get drunk, they always have and they always will. By putting stricter control on pubs and clubs will only encourage more students to drink unsupervised at home.
This particular trend has already began with the so called ‘preloading’ resulting in my opinion in higher cases of antisocial behaviour as the are having parties in residential areas.
The government should either ban alcohol for under 21 year olds or just accept it for what it is. Especially in Southampton. Without the students there would be nothing here.
Whose responsibility are drunk students?
He did however suggest there is currently a climate of irresponsibility which should see the safety bus scrapped:
These days, halls staff complain to the univerisity, the university complain to the police and the police have to act. If we could go back to the old system, great.
Sadly, the way thing are at the moment with nobody being responsible for their own actions, the University have no choice but to scrap the safety bus and I agree.
Will Pearson, Safety Bus driver, is worried over the proposals and has emailed VP Welfare Beckie Thomas expressing his concern.
Graduating this year, he affirms that his “opinion is unbiased and based purely on what I believe to be in the best interests of SUSU and the student population”. He wrote in the email:
[The proposal] points out that it is SUSU’s purpose to “protect our members by ensuring they are well supported to take responsibility for their own wellbeing and safety on a night out”. The Safety Bus is precisely this support. I don’t believe any student goes out at the start of the night thinking: “I’ll get really drunk tonight and it’ll be fine because the safety bus will be there”.
Of course, in an ideal world everyone would take responsibility for their own wellbeing, but in the real world you must accept that students will occasionally drink too much to be able to look after themselves properly, and this is for most students (fortunately or unfortunately) a part of growing up at university.
In response to SUSU’s suggestion that “trained support personnel” will ensure students “are feeling safe and can get home safely”, Will wrote:
What will “trained support personnel” be able to do with a drunk student who can’t stand up? Carry them home? Furthermore, what are the provisions for these personnel? Are they expected to stand outside on the road in Bevois Valley in all weathers? Do they have access to a toilet? I would also suggest that they may be a potential target for abuse or assault themselves.
Finally, I find it hard to see how [the] proposal doesn’t “negate the nightclubs’ duty of care to their customers” to an even greater extent.
VP Welfare Beckie Thomas responded to criticism of the policy:
The policy has been written to secure the Highfield service as [there] was nothing in place to secure it before. Also that the policy does not say that we will remove the Portswood service. It states the minimum level of support that we will provide.
Along with the plans to cut the Safety Bus, the Union Council’s agenda also shows a request to approve funding for a “common room style” social area in Bar 2, and the construction of the Recruitment Agency, with a total cost of over £50,000 between them.
What do you think of the proposal? Let us know in the comments below.
I hope the intention of this isn’t to cut costs, as this is one of the few beneficial things SUSU actually does…
Reply
Vociferous critic of SUSU that I am, I think this makes sense. I’m surprised they ever did it
Reply
“opinion is unbiased” is an oxymoron
Reply
Susu’s shameful plans to try and discourage irresponsible drinking by fundamentally endangering students is clearly being put forward by people who have never worked on the Portswood safety bus and have no idea just how much of a necessary service it is. Students do not drink to excess because there is a safety bus they merely make use of the service because it is a safe and reliable means of getting home. It is not just there for drunk people but people who have lost there friends or money and have no means of safely getting back home. At a time where national statistics of rape and sexual assault are at their highest the idea the susu would consider cutting such a valuable measure is a clear demonstration of how much of a profiteering organisation susu has become. Voting in favor of this will not stop students drinking or have any measurable impact on the drinking culture but it will put those students in danger.
As was rightly explained by a lot if taxis will reject students that are too drunk at which point the proposed support personnel become a meaningless platitude made by susu. An entirely insufficient replacement for one of the very few services susu provides that actually help make this organisation a little less unfit for purpose.
Reply
thanks for using my name
Reply
Fuck SUSU. Privatise all their space and use the revenue to fund clubs and societies.
Reply
As a postgrad, I don’t really go out and get drunk anymore as I don’t have the time, and haven’t been to jesters/sobar for almost a year (how depressing), however when I did go out more I didn’t think ‘let’s get pissed ‘cuz the safety bus will save my arse’, but it did ensure I stayed safe when I needed it.
I do think it is a great service for students because it takes them when taxis may not, it’s cheaper than a cab so students who get separated from/lose their equally rat-arsed friends are less likely to opt to stumble home because of the cost. I don’t know how common fake cabs are in Southampton, but it also reduces the risk of very drunk and vulnerable lone students from being preyed upon by fake cabbies with sinister motives.
Although obviously SUSU is not obliged to provide the service and there is a responsibility on students to make sure they limit their alcohol intake, make sure their friends do not get too drunk and don’t leave anyone behind, I do think cutting this service puts students at greater risk.
Furthermore, was this mentioned in the SUSU elections?
Reply
To address some of the commenters here:
– This policy was bounced by Union Council once before because in that particular case it stated we WOULD cut safety bus services to Bevois Valley, but only because the feeling is that bouncers are often throwing people on safety bus when realistically they’re too far gone for even that and they’re still in an unsafe state when dropped off at their door if they’re alone. This a new version of that same policy, but without the explicit mention of cutting the services this time. Make of that, what you will. Beckie and other people involved in this policy went on a ride-along one night to see exactly how the safety bus worked, and what the issues with the process were when the service was being delivered in Bevois Valley.
– Cost doesn’t factor in, the safety bus runs at a pretty significant loss all of the time anyway and SUSU has budgeted for it to do so, as it’s such a key service.
– The provision of the support people (or so I’ve been told) is there to bolster the situation in which the safety bus is taking 3/4 people home, and other people who clearly need it are just loitering around outside jesters/sobar in no fit state. While the “trained support personnel” might be at risk outside during student nights, I can guarantee that sober people are at much less risk than some fresher after downing 7 jesticles.
– The reason for the policy in its current state, is as Beckie says to formalise that we have a safety bus, and it will definitely always run from Highfield. The lack of mention of the Bevois Valley service is there to provide flexibility, on the off chance that some other system works and replaces it, I don’t necessarily agree but that’s the logic behind the absence of the direct mention of running a Bevois Valley service in the “Resolves” section.
– This isn’t an “election” policy, we haven’t had our new Sabbs/other officers in yet, so the most recent elections and the variety of things promised there don’t really factor in here. As noted previously, this is re-bringing a policy that got sent away for further work earlier this year.
If you have major concerns about the policy (as it seems many of you do), your best bet is to contact your representatives (https://www.susu.org/you-make-change/submit/question) – most specifically your faculty officer who is there to represent your views at Union Council. Alternatively, you can use that same link to contact Beckie Thomas, VP Welfare, who is the one bringing the policy forward.
Reply
– So the wording’s been changed, but the intention’s the same? Making it sound more palatable to get it through council and then acting without a mandate – yay democracy!
– A budget that could be spent elsewhere – I hear the rebrand will be costly…
– There are already regularly CU people volunteering down there, and older/more sober students (not one and the same, I know) are on the whole a compassionate bunch who offer assistance.
– You’re telling me they couldn’t amend the policy if they found something more suitable in the future?
If I did have a major concern about the policy, I’d promptly try to forget all about it, because in my experience trying to engage with representatives is an entirely fruitless endeavour.
Won’t somebody please think of the students!
Reply
Joel, May… you forgot to mention that this policy will be debated at Council on Monday at which point officers and councillors will vote on the merits of the policy. ANY member of SUSU can come to council and speak for/against, and participate in the general debate, but only elected individuals can vote.
If readers have strong views one way or another I would urge them to come and make themselves heard. Beckie I know will be giving a full explanation of the thought process behind this and I would encourage that people wait until they hear that before casting judgement on the policy!
Please put it in the diary folks! Monday, 11am, The Cube!!! Lots of other important topics to be discussed too so get involved and get stuck in!
https://www.susu.org/meetings/977
Reply
Yes, what a great idea. Let’s debate this important issue on a Monday morning after exams. I mean it only alienates any student who has already gone home, any student who has a job or any student who has organised an internship. This is the problem with SUSU, all these meetings seem to be well known and advertised to a very select group of people.
Reply
You can only use the “after exams” excuse so many times. SUSU schedules meetings at least a month in advance, and agenda is made available at least a week in advance.
If you can’t be bothered to get involved, fine, but don’t dress it up that SUSU is intentionally evasive and tries to slip these things under the radar.
Equally, there are reps on union council who are meant to represent you – look them up and use them, otherwise all they’re representing is themselves.
Reply
You seem to have missed out where I mentioned those who are working. Also I would claim that debating the safety bus over the summer period in the same meeting as ‘Socially Responsible Investment’ and ‘Renaming the RAG Officer’ as SUSU trying to slip things under the radar.
Reply
It’s the last meeting of the year, which is required to happen, and has to be after exams because that’s the last possible time that current officers are still in post (they switchover in July I think…), and allows papers to come from various other committees.
There’s no grand conspiracy to slip things under the radar, or it would be submitted as an “emergency policy” which only the council members would know about, and only perhaps on the day. The fact that this article exists is enough evidence that there’s nothing sneaky going on as the student media has reported on it.
Students working doesn’t preclude them from contacting their reps via email and expressing their sentiments. They ran for these positions; make them do the job they signed up for. If you’re content with just being a keyboard warrior on the Tab, fine, but don’t pretend there’s literally no way for you to contribute to this unless you’re in the room during the meeting.
Reply
Unfortunately I couldn’t attend as I was doing a shift for SUSU at the time – if there is another way to get my voice heard (other than attending), I don’t know about it
Reply
Yet another silly proposal that nobody was informed about during any previous elections. One of the only good things SUSU did. Nobody wants a new ‘social area’ either, it sounds naff and rather expensive!
Reply