Deputy Returning Officer’s Ruling on media article - 29th October 2025
I have been asked to rule on whether a media article, and specifically a statement given by the Campaign Lead for Yes to NUS Disaffiliation, is a breach of the election rules. I have considered the complaint, the article linked, as well as the election rules, by-laws, articles, Education Act 1994 and the Impress journalistic standards. I will address each of three headings of the complaint in turn.
Lack of a right of reply
It is regrettable that this article does not provide a right of reply to the No campaign, the National Union of Students or Cambridge SU. This is not in keeping with our guidance to the media on helping us facilitate a free and fair referendum. This is however the responsibility of the media outlet concerned and not of the campaign lead for the Yes campaign, who is able to respond to any media requests they receive.
I therefore dismiss this ground of the complaint however we will take steps to engage with the media outlet concerned, and ask that they consider giving a right of reply to all parties concerned in line with their journalistic standards.
Union Officer role
The complaint raises concerns about the attribution of the complaint to the Yes Campaign lead also referencing their union officer role. In line with By-Law 9, Articles 2.5 and 2.6, it is by virtue of their sabbatical officer role that sabbatical offers are able to campaign in the election:
- 2.5. Members of the Executive Committee engaging in campaigning activity in referendums may only do so in accordance with their existing democratic mandates.
- 2.6. For the avoidance of doubt, where no relevant existing mandate exists, members of the Executive Committee may campaign as they see fit.
The article references the campaign lead’s specific representative role and does not imply they are speaking on behalf of Cambridge SU. I am satisfied that, and advised as such last week, that officers can quote their specific job titles in relation to campaigning.
I therefore dismiss this ground of the complaint. However, we will be seeking a right of reply for Cambridge SU, in order to address the circumstances in which the referendum was called.
Association with racist, antisemitic content
The wider content of this article is not in line with the journalistic standards we would expect of media engaging with our referendum. However, the quote provided by the Campaign Lead is fully in line with the election rules, and we do not expect Campaign Leads providing quotes to vet the outlets or articles they are providing them to, or to be accountable for the wider content of the article.
I therefore dismiss this ground of the complaint, and so the complaint in its entirety. However, the article itself falls below the standards we would expect. in relation to headings 1 and 3, and we will therefore be seeking to make contact with the media outlet concerned, seeking the rights of reply discussed.
Note
I have been asked to consider using my powers under By-Law 8 Article 9.6 to refer the Campaign Lead to the union conduct procedure. Given my rulings above, most notably that the Campaign Lead is not accountable for the wider article, I do not consider that it is likely or plausible that a student member has breached the code of conduct, and I therefore do not accept the complainant’s request to make a referral into any conduct-related processes.