Got the following response from GCU to my follow up email:
Dear XXX
Thank you for your email. Further to my earlier reply, having reviewed available clips of the event to which you refer, we can find no evidence that Martin Compston participated in singing inappropriate lyrics. Our Communications team regularly views all content on social media which refers to GCU and, having viewed this video on multiple channels, we maintain our position that there are no grounds to review the University’s relationship with Martin Compston.
Against this background the University considers this correspondence closed.
Regards
Debbie
Debbie Donnet
Acting Head of Governance | Department of Governance and Legal Services
I have just recieved the same.
As there are original alternative lyrics it does become extremely difficult to prove what he is singing.
What is evident however is the content of the audiences singing.He has at no time condemned their actions and any reasonable person can assume that he would be able to hear the content of the crowds lyrics just as we can.
This leaves us with at least two main considerations.
His behaviour during the incident and post incident reaction.
He is actively participating and reacting in an elated chest thumping militant manner to a crowd praising a proscribed terrorist organisation.It is entirely unreasonable that he did not know exactly what was being sung.Hes not deaf.
He makes no attempt to leave the area or to take the mike and ask the crowd to stop.He appears highly elated.
Post event he makes no attempt to condem the open praise given to a proscribed terrorist organisation now that it has been pointed out to him that it is obvious to all that alternative lyrics were being sung.
Therefore she may have considered the case closed with regards to proof in relation to what is being sung by Compston.
However his elated behaviour on stage whilst a crowd openly praises the IRA and his lack of condemnation have not been considered.
I would say that there are grounds for being dissatisfied with the response on the grounds that it does not evaluate the situation in its entirely.Therefore despite her assertion that the matter is closed it is not and anyone can raise further points.
I would also say that there may be grounds for submitting a complaint about her deliberately streamlined and incomplete examination of the video evidence.
It may be the case that Ms Donnets decision requires to be complained about and reviewed.Imho.