{"id":682616,"date":"2026-01-08T16:53:21","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T16:53:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/682616\/"},"modified":"2026-01-08T16:53:21","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T16:53:21","slug":"bristol-su-referred-to-charity-commission-over-alleged-breach-of-articles-of-association","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/682616\/","title":{"rendered":"Bristol SU referred to Charity Commission over alleged breach of Articles of Association"},"content":{"rendered":"

By James Lewis<\/strong>, co Editor-in-Chief<\/p>\n

The complaint alleges that the SU were in breach of their <\/strong>Articles of Association<\/strong><\/a> when the Democratic Standards Committee (DSC) \u2013 a group of elected students who run democratic events at the SU \u2013 rejected a Motion of Censure being brought to Student Council on 11 December 2025.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The proposed Motion of Censure related to the Board of Trustees\u2019 unprecedented move at November\u2019s Student Council to overrule students, who had voted against updating the SU\u2019s byelaws <\/a>to remove reference to the Associate Membership Scheme (AMS).<\/p>\n

How did we get here?\u00a0<\/p>\n

In April 2024, Bristol SU announced it would commission an external review<\/a> of the SU\u2019s Code of Conduct following an open letter<\/a> \u2013 published in March 2024 \u2013 by the University of Bristol Ladies Hockey Club. The open letter pointed out that sexual assault did not technically violate the SU\u2019s Code of Conduct policies. The review made 42 recommendations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Bristol SU announces the end of associate memberships<\/p>\n

Backlash as 33 societies publish an open letter condemning the decision as \u2018distasteful and undemocratic.\u2019<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Bristol SU Code of Conduct under review after Uni Hockey Society\u2019s open letter calls for changes to sexual assault policy<\/p>\n

UBLHC has published an open letter expressing their discontent with the SU\u2019s current Code of Conduct which does not constitute sexual assault as a violation.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

How grey areas in the SU safeguarding policy and admin delays failed to protect students at Bristol University<\/p>\n

In light of the SU\u2019s announcement that their Code of Conduct will undergo an external review, Amelia Jacob investigates the context of UBLHC\u2019s campaign to hold the SU accountable for their safeguarding responsibilities.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The SU, in line with the recommendations, announced in July 2024 that the AMS would be scrapped \u2013 a decision that faced significant backlash<\/a> from the student body at the time. The Code of Conduct was updated<\/a> on August 1 to remove AMS and implemented other safeguarding recommendations.<\/p>\n

However, the SU\u2019s byelaws were not updated to reflect the removal of the AMS as this usually requires approval at Student Council.<\/p>\n

What happened at November\u2019s Student Council?<\/p>\n

Students voted against a motion\u00a0to\u00a0formally\u00a0remove\u00a0AMS\u00a0from the SU\u2019s\u00a0byelaws<\/a>.\u00a0But, because of the SU\u2019s recent Code of Conduct review<\/a>, the SU\u2019s Board of Trustees voted to overrule the Student Council vote\u00a0in an unprecedented move<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"The Democratic Standards Committee at December’s Student Council | Epigram \/ James Lewis<\/p>\n

A SU spokesperson told\u00a0Epigram\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0review\u00a0recommended\u00a0the AMS\u00a0be removed from the byelaws because it\u00a0represented\u00a0\u2018safeguarding, health and safety and insurance\u2019 risks.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The SU byelaws govern how the SU functions.\u00a0Normally, any byelaw change requires a supermajority of 66 per cent\u00a0in\u00a0favour\u00a0at Student Council. However, the Board of Trustees voted to overturn the decision expressed at Student Council to uphold the recommendations made in the\u00a0Code of\u00a0Conduct review.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Board of Trustees is a group of 11 elected students\u00a0(including seven Full Time Officers)\u00a0and five appointed trustees, who are chosen based on specialist knowledge. They have\u00a0ultimate\u00a0legal responsibility for the SU. They act in the interest of the charity and its members by following the\u00a0six essential duties<\/a>\u00a0described by the Charity Commission.\u00a0Their decision to overrule Student Council was legal though unprecedented.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Two motions passed, but Associate Membership still dominates at Student Council<\/p>\n

An \u2018Expression of Dissatisfaction\u2019 was passed over the Board of Trustee\u2019s unprecedented move to overturn a motion regarding Associate Membership at the last Student Council.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Ned Gardner-Thorpe \u2013 second year Chemist and course representative \u2013 said, however, that the Board of Trustees\u2019 decision to override Student Council\u2019s vote \u2018disregarded the views of students who participated in good faith.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

So,\u00a0what\u2019s\u00a0being complained about if the Board acted legally?\u00a0<\/p>\n

Mr\u00a0Gardner-Thorpe\u00a0proposed a Motion of Censure to be debated and voted on\u00a0at Student Council on 11 December 2025 concerning the Trustees\u2019 overruling of Student Council\u2019s vote. He said that the\u00a0removal of\u00a0the AMS has had an \u2018unacceptable impact on societies\u00a0and lack of support among students is becoming increasingly clear.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

A Motion of Censure is a strong, formal\u00a0criticism\u00a0that can be brought against an individual or group in positions of power. According to\u00a0article 41.1.f of the SU\u2019s Articles of Association \u2013 the highest document the SU governs from \u2013 Motions of Censure are possible.\u00a0<\/p>\n

However, the Motion was rejected by the Democratic Standards Committee (DSC) \u2013 the\u00a0elected student group responsible for the SU\u2019s democratic proceedings \u2013 after five hours of deliberation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"Article 41.1.f in full | Bristol SU \/ Articles of Association<\/a><\/p>\n

In an email seen by\u00a0Epigram\u00a0to\u00a0Mr\u00a0Gardner-Thorpe, the decision is\u00a0defended.\u00a0\u2018[T]he intended purpose of [this motion] doesn\u2019t match the\u00a0appropriate\u00a0use of the Censure mechanism\u2019, the email read, \u2018and goes against the spirit of what a Censure should be used for.\u2019 Instead, an alternative Expression of Dissatisfaction was added to the agenda of December\u2019s Student Council, which was voted in\u00a0favour\u00a0of.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Motions of Censure in the context of Student\u00a0Union\u2019s\u00a0have\u00a0generally been\u00a0used to show dissatisfaction with an individual\u2019s actions, rather than a\u00a0group\u2019s. This\u00a0has been\u00a0the\u00a0case at Trinity College, Dublin<\/a>, Durham University<\/a>, and at the National Unions of Students<\/a> in recent years where individuals\u00a0\u2013 not groups\u00a0\u2013\u00a0have been censured or\u00a0nearly censured.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This is not to say, however, that a Motion of Censure against a group is not possible.\u00a0Mr\u00a0Gardner-Thorpe says that the article in which Motions of Censure\u00a0are\u00a0mentioned\u00a0are broad\u00a0(the\u00a0article\u00a0says,\u00a0\u2018such motions of censure shall express the Student Council\u2019s dissatisfaction\u2019)\u00a0because, he says,\u00a0\u2018the writers intended a broad interpretation of censure powers.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

An update on Bristol SU\u2019s 2024 Code of Conduct Review<\/p>\n

To date, the SU has implemented 31 of the recommendations outlined in its 2024 Code of Conduct review. The Code of Conduct now explicitly prohibits sexual misconduct, sexual violence, and sexual harrassment, as demanded by the University of Bristol Ladies Hockey Club (UBLHC).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Mr\u00a0Gardner-Thorpe told\u00a0Epigram\u00a0that his Motion of Censure\u00a0was intended to \u2018demonstrate that the conversation on Associate Membership is not over and that the situation\u00a0must be resolved in a way acceptable to students.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

He also was\u00a0disappointed\u00a0with the alternative dissent, because it \u2018removed or altered much of the criticism [he] intended.\u2019 He said that this \u2018wasn\u2019t acceptable\u2019, which has prompted him to refer the situation to the Charity Commission for a resolution.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Since Bristol SU is a charity, the Charity Commission serves as its sector\u2019s regulator.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

UCL academic claims University of Bristol failed to uphold free speech, threatens legal action<\/p>\n

Prof. Alice Sullivan from University College London was met with protesters when she visited Bristol in October to deliver a seminar. She is now prepared to take legal action against the University, which she alleges failed to uphold her freedom of speech.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

An\u00a0SU spokesperson\u00a0reiterated how the Expression of Dissatisfaction enabled \u2018a formal expression of dissatisfaction with the Bristol SU Trustee Board from student representatives.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

They also acknowledged that the \u2018DSC is aware of the need of a mechanism to express dissatisfaction, and this will be a future topic\u00a0of\u00a0discussion.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

While the complaint has been lodged, the charity commission have not yet completed their investigation\u00a0into\u00a0the allegations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Featured image: Epigram \/ Ellen Reynolds<\/p>\n

What do you think of the way the SU have handled all this? Let us know! Send us a DM on Instagram (@epigrampaper_) or drop us an email on editor.epigram@gmail.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By James Lewis, co Editor-in-Chief The complaint alleges that the SU were in breach of their Articles of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":682617,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8818],"tags":[381,748,393,4884,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-682616","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-bristol","8":"tag-bristol","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-england","11":"tag-great-britain","12":"tag-uk","13":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115860524913843508","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/682616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=682616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/682616\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/682617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=682616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=682616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=682616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}