A Bristol University student has referred Bristol SU to The Charity Commission after claims that the rejection of a motion of censure on 11 December 2025 by the Democratic Standards Committee (DSC) was in breach of the SU’s own internal rules.
The DSC is an elected group of students responsible for protecting the SU’s democratic processes. The motion of censure was lodged as a complaint in response to the Board of Trustees overruling the student council’s majority in an unprecedented move at November’s council meeting.
What led to this?
In April 2024, Bristol SU reviewed their Code of Conduct after receiving 42 recommendations in an open letter published by Bristol Ladies Hockey Club.
The club demanded reform to the SU’s policy surrounding sexual assault which, at the time, did not officially violate its Code of Conduct. In July 2025 as part of a full conduct review, Bristol SU set out further safeguarding recommendations from the open letter by announcing the end of the Associated Membership Scheme (AMS).
AMS had previously allowed alumni, staff and young people from outside of the University of Bristol to join student societies. To officially remove AMS from the Byelaws, the SU awaited a majority vote from the Student Council. At November’s meeting, the motion to remove AMS came to Student Council and did not pass.
In an unprecedented move, the Board of Trustees – a body made up of 11 democratically elected students and 5 appointed Trustees – overturned the student majority and chose to officially remove AMS from the SU Byelaws.
Though atypical, the Bristol SU Byelaws do state that ‘in the event of a disagreement between Student Council and the Board of Trustees…the Board of Trustees is empowered to overrule Student Council’.
Student and course representative Ned Gardner-Thorpe opposed the Trustees’ overturning of the Student Council majority and proposed a motion of censure for debate on 11 December 2025.
Motions of censure, as described in Article 41.1.f in the SU’s Articles of Association, ‘shall express the Student Council’s dissatisfaction with the relevant Union Officer or Trustee’. The motion was put to the DSC for approval.
Though Bristol SU had not received one before, the committee reviewed cases of censure raised at other SUs, for instance: Durham, National Union of Students and Trinity College, Dublin. These complaints had been lodged against the behaviour or performance of an individual and not against the conduct of the board as a whole. The DSC rejected the proposed motion of censure as unsuitable, given the nature of the disagreement.
Epigram reported from an email sent to Mr Gardner-Thorpe: “[t]he intended purpose of [this motion] doesn’t match the appropriate use of the Censure mechanism and goes against the spirit of what a Censure should be used for.”
Instead, an alternative ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ was added to the agenda of December’s Student Council.
Mr Gardner-Thorpe told Epigram that his proposed motion of censure aimed to “demonstrate that the conversation on Associate Membership is not over” and that the change to his complaint has “removed or altered much of the criticism [he] intended”.
Whilst the Board of Trustees are legally responsible for the operation of the SU, it is regulated by the Charity Commission – a government body responsible for maintaining the charity register. Gardner-Thorpe has referred Bristol SU to this commission.
It is within the rights of any member of the public to raise an official concern about a registered charity and is the prerogative of the commission to decide whether to take any action in response.
A Bristol SU Spokesperson, said:
