A badly thought out plan which was poorly publicised and clearly not done in the interest of students. 

Ordered food and drink with a colleague and wanted to go through some work with them on my laptop. Was instantly told by staff to put it away, who were more willing to provide a refund of £10 than explain the rationale of the decision.

A blanket ban can only do more harm than good. Yes, some people may abuse the old situation but most of people (myself included) see using a laptop a vital part of visiting a cafe, especially when going alone. So as with many others, I'll be taking my business elsewhere.

This ban is completely ridiculous, and is indicative of an unprofesional and unintelligent committee. As the Students Union, it is your job to have the student's best interests at heart whilst maintaining a profitable organisation. This decision does neither of these things.

Firstly, unless you have thourough research that can prove otherwise, excluding students from using laptops in the Bridge can only hurt profit margines, as many people who use the Bridge for this reason will often buy hot drinks and food. If you are concerned that laptop users will be taking up space from potential customers, then make it a rule that people can only use the Bridge at busy times if they buy food. Just take a look at any successful coffee shop chain out there; you don't see them stopping customers coming in if all they are going to do is look at their phone or use their laptop, because they know they lose potential custom. I'm sure most places will politely ask people to buy food or drink if it gets busy.

Secondly, you should really be trying to find an alternative solution to this proble, if it even is a problem. By banning a subset of the students from using the Bridge, you only go from one problem to another; that being the problem of more unhappy students. You need to find an incentinve to make people to want to not use laptops in the bridge, like creating a new space where students can buy and eat hot food, whilst being able to work. Or alternatively, make it a space where people will always want to buy food and drink when they enter, by improving service or quality of products, again like any other standard coffee shop chain.

Finally, the Bridge is a fantastic place to work; reasonably calm unlike the cafeterias next door and below, whilst allowing you to eat hot food unlike the library. By inforcing this global ban, you are not looking out for the students, but only for profit. I think it is fine to have a semi-ban during peak times, but not 24/7. The Union needs to take a good look at itself and ask what its job actually is. 

This ban is completely ridiculous, and is indicative of an unprofesional and unintelligent committee. As the Students Union, it is your job to have the student's best interests at heart whilst maintaining a profitable organisation. This decision does neither of these things.

Firstly, unless you have thourough research that can prove otherwise, excluding students from using laptops in the Bridge can only hurt profit margines, as many people who use the Bridge for this reason will often buy hot drinks and food. If you are concerned that laptop users will be taking up space from potential customers, then make it a rule that people can only use the Bridge at busy times if they buy food. Just take a look at any successful coffee shop chain out there; you don't see them stopping customers coming in if all they are going to do is look at their phone or use their laptop, because they know they lose potential custom. I'm sure most places will politely ask people to buy food or drink if it gets busy.

Secondly, you should really be trying to find an alternative solution to this proble, if it even is a problem. By banning a subset of the students from using the Bridge, you only go from one problem to another; that being the problem of more unhappy students. You need to find an incentinve to make people to want to not use laptops in the bridge, like creating a new space where students can buy and eat hot food, whilst being able to work. Or alternatively, make it a space where people will always want to buy food and drink when they enter, by improving service or quality of products, again like any other standard coffee shop chain.

Finally, the Bridge is a fantastic place to work; reasonably calm unlike the cafeterias next door and below, whilst allowing you to eat hot food unlike the library. By inforcing this global ban, you are not looking out for the students, but only for profit. I think it is fine to have a semi-ban during peak times, but not 24/7. The Union needs to take a good look at itself and ask what its job actually is. 

The ban on laptop use in the Bridge is utterly ridiculous. Last Friday I logged onto my laptop, I was one of three people in the Bridge. Within about 2 minutes tops, 3 different members of staff had told me to put my laptop away. I was going to buy a coffee, maybe even a pastry, but instead I took my business elsewhere.

The Bridge is within a student union, a union which prides itself as being for the students of UoS. How is alienating students who just want to check their lecture timetable or do an hours work for the students? 

The rule shouldn’t be a laptop ban. The rule should be, in peak times, if it’s busy and you’re on your laptop and not buying food then you need to find somewhere else to go. 

Last year I would often go for a peaceful cup of tea and to do a bit of work, or to hold a meeting or even have a study date with a friend, when the library is just too much of a stressful place. I’m not quite sure what anyone has achieved by banning them, the Bridge is now just losing custom. 

Bridge Woes - a Haiku

"Laptop brought in Bridge

Wanted pints; was accosted

Unhappy student"

If the Student Union were a profit driven organisation, and evidence pointed that a 'laptop free zone' would have increased profit, perhaps I would have been able to accept that. If the Bridge were run by an external company, and this was their 'new marketing policy', I would 'begrudgingly' accept that. However, as far as I'm aware, these two points are not true, but if I am erroneous in these two facts, please do correct me. While myself and almost everyone I know is thoroughly annoyed due to the recent changes, this is only exacerbated by the fact that no reason has been publicised by the Student Union as to why a 'laptop free zone' needed to be created, or in fact when it was created. If there had been a reason (which I rationally want to believe there is), evidently it has been terribly publicised, if it was at all. Perhaps Health and Safety? Profit Margins? General impressions given to visitors? No one outside of any decision making process has any idea, furthering the image of the 'big bad student union'. Without beating around the bush, quite frankly this would be, as some would say, a tremendous 'screw you' to the student union members. My faith in the Leadership Team and Union Leaders has been throughly shaken, and I am disappointed in this fact.

This ban is completely understandable, and yet entirely not thought-through. 

As mentioned in many comments, the bridge is a key meeting place for many societies. It also represents a place of serenity for a quick lunch between lectures and a meeting place for friends. It's unreasonable prices are only comprimised by the atmosphere - taking away a key part of the bridge makes it a less attractive option. 

Dont ban laptops at peak times, ask people to buy a meal if they are taking a table, or politely ask them to leave. But don't disrespect the custom the bridge recieves. 

This ban makes no sense coming from a union that is supposed to be for the students. The bridge is supposedly meant to be an 'up market' restaurant, which is kind of code for 'the prices are high'. Which is perfectly understandable but then you can't be surprised that people on student budgets are only buying coffee/tea. Banning laptops, which is essentially a move to kick out anyone who isn't eating there, essentially ends up creating a space that is essentially not for students, as most people on a student budget cannot afford to eat there. It becomes a place for visitors and staff and possibly the occasional postgraduate, which once again makes SUSU feel like a union that isn't really catered towards me as a student, but like more of a money making machine. 

I am incredibly disappointed by this change. Last year the Bridge was a place I frequently used, to discuss the vision and administration of LOpSoc's The Mikado with my co-director. Having a space to work on this together in a comfortable environment over a steak sandwich was essential to our sanity in the process. With this ban, it is impossible for others to do the same now and I know for a fact that many other societies and study groups used the Bridge for the same reason.

The other day I went into a half full bridge with many Laptops out and then 10 minutes later, after one of the staff went round and told those people to put their laptops away, it was virtually empty. This ruling will lose the Bridge plenty of business, as well as deny students that space to work, discuss and eat. Of course, if no one is buying anything then they should be somewhere else, but sometimes people want to work with a pint in hand - and that's okay.

The students union is there to support its students. If students work well in an environment such as the bridge, then it is not the place of SUSU to tell them that this is a bad way to work....that is up to the student. I fully understand the Bridge prioritising paying customers over those that just sit there for the table, and therefore I am more than happy for the Bridge to kick people out over the busy lunchtime period to allow paying customers to eat, however when the Bridge is empty then it does raise questions as to what benefit the SU has by telling people to leave. How about lunch meetings, where teams or groups may wish to get a nice meal (rather than a sandwhich or something) whilst still continuing to work? Is it really right for SUSU to tell them to either not work during their lunch, or to go and eat elsewhere?

I don't neccesarily mind the ban in itself, but I do think the current setup is not optimal. Bar 3 booths are not a suitable prelacement for a place to go - one person ends up taking the entire booth just so they can sit somewhere with a laptop and they're not very comfortable for that kind of thing anyway. The Bridge was a great place to have meetings and to do work, for those who wanted a bit more buzz and atmosphere and casualness to their work setting - and you could get food and drink while you were there if you fancied. Clearly, what with the Bridge being rather empty at times now, there was demand for a place like the Bridge but where you can do work as well. Even if it makes sense to have a ban for the Bridge, it would be very welcome for there to be a Bridge-like place where people can study as well as having a restaurant where people can eat. There should be space for people who want to be able to eat in a nice place and for people who want to be able to work in a nice place, even if those spaces have to be seperate.

I find this ban stupid. The bridge is empty - why is it bad to use your laptop?

I’ve been told to put my laptop away a moment after I put it on the table. I didn’t even open it, I was sorting some papers.