That's a pretty selective set of cases, isn't it? To take a more recent example (albeit not in the realm of academia), the Labour party just kicked out one of its MPs after she was convicted of perverting the course of justice. I don't think it's really in dispute that she caused reputational damage to the party, and that they were therefore justified in acting?
I am pointing out that Universities have dismissed Professors because they hold unpopular views before.
My analogies may be selective but -- as far as I am aware -- Dr Scott-Samuel has been allegedly fired because of something he said. He holds an unpopular view.
Of course, if Dr Scott-Samuel had been convicted of perverting the course of justice, then your analogy would be better. But, Dr Scott-Samuel has not been convicted of anything, other than holding an unpopular view.
In those circumstances, isn't it quite likely that May will present parliament not only with the EU's final offer, but also with a clear statement by the EU of their conditions for an extension?
That is an interesting line of thought because this knowledge could steer the outcome. My initial feeling therefore is that, although it sounds on the surface eminently sensible, there will not be such a statement. Both the UK government and the EU will want MPs to think that rejecting the Deal could well lead to No Deal.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
What about having a duty of care to your employees. So if an employee made anti-semitic statements outside work and the business they worked for employed Jewish people, would the protection of those employees not be a valid reason?
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
That's a pretty selective set of cases, isn't it? To take a more recent example (albeit not in the realm of academia), the Labour party just kicked out one of its MPs after she was convicted of perverting the course of justice. I don't think it's really in dispute that she caused reputational damage to the party, and that they were therefore justified in acting?
I am pointing out that Universities have dismissed Professors because they hold unpopular views before.
My analogies may be selective but -- as far as I am aware -- Dr Scott-Samuel has been allegedly fired because of something he said. He holds an unpopular view.
Of course, if Dr Scott-Samuel had been convicted of perverting the course of justice, then your analogy would be better. But, Dr Scott-Samuel has not been convicted of anything, other than holding an unpopular view.
My point is that in all cases, the individual was fired for bringing the institution they represented into disrepute (except the case under discussion, where it seems he retired some time ago and now holds an honorary position). In other words, holding unpopular views is fine, as long as you're not quoted by the media and thereby associate your employer with those views.
I disagree with your statement that "the use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel" - if I'd said what he'd said and it had got into the media with my employer's name attached, all it would take is one or two clients to not renew contracts as a result and that's millions of pounds a year in damages caused.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
If you read the article he left the University in December 2015 so it is not all obvious that he has been sacked for recent comments. Rather, he may have been misrepresenting his position with the University. Having views one does not like should not generally be grounds for sacking - but that does depend on the contractual arrangements in place. Many organisations do have rules requiring staff not to behave in a way which brings the employer into disrepute.
They often also have rules or codes about diversity / not being racist and the rest. Having representatives peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories is not really in the spirit of such codes and may be in breach of them.
There is another point: universities are meant to be places of academic excellence. Lecturers should not be peddling conspiracy theories unsupported by facts or, frankly, associating and supporting people like David Icke who is away with the fairies. Would you want your children educated by someone who paid no attention to facts or context?
On a more general point, Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” - while mostly focused on the US - is very good on how such people have tried to insinuate themselves into academic circles and make respectable the very idea of questioning whether the Holocaust happened.
People can have lots of different opinions. You can debate opinions. But you can’t make up your own facts. Conspiracy theorists - whether on the right or left - tend, deliberately, to mix up the two, precisely in order to make their conspiracy theories more respectable than they should be.
In those circumstances, isn't it quite likely that May will present parliament not only with the EU's final offer, but also with a clear statement by the EU of their conditions for an extension?
That is an interesting line of thought because this knowledge could steer the outcome. My initial feeling therefore is that, although it sounds on the surface eminently sensible, there will not be such a statement. Both the UK government and the EU will want MPs to think that rejecting the Deal could well lead to No Deal.
Actually, that's what I'm thinking - that it's quite likely the EU will tell May they'll approve an extension if the deal is agreed, but not otherwise. Thus (unless the MPs think the EU is bluffing) it really would become a straight choice between Deal and No Deal.
If you read the article he left the University in December 2015 so it is not all obvious that he has been sacked for recent comments. Rather, he may have been misrepresenting his position with the University. Having views one does not like should not generally be grounds for sacking - but that does depend on the contractual arrangements in place. Many organisations do have rules requiring staff not to behave in a way which brings the employer into disrepute.
They often also have rules or codes about diversity / not being racist and the rest. Having representatives peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories is not really in the spirit of such codes and may be in breach of them.
There is another point: universities are meant to be places of academic excellence. Lecturers should not be peddling conspiracy theories unsupported by facts or, frankly, associating and supporting people like David Icke who is away with the fairies. Would you want your children educated by someone who paid no attention to facts or context?
On a more general point, Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” - while mostly focused on the US - is very good on how such people have tried to insinuate themselves into academic circles and make respectable the very idea of questioning whether the Holocaust happened.
People can have lots of different opinions. You can debate opinions. But you can’t make up your own facts. Conspiracy theorists - whether on the right or left - tend, deliberately, to mix up the two, precisely in order to make their conspiracy theories more respectable than they should be.
Cheers Cyclefree. I am not sure I disagree with much of what you have said there and someone else below has now noted that the story of his sacking may not be true. All I would say is that in the current climate of people being driven out of universities because of their political views I think it is important to make that stand for free speech even with someone you profoundly disagree with like a far left Anti-Semite.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
Far from it. An atheist vicar would be fired.
But a vicar who described himself as a non-theist would be fine.
Actually, that's what I'm thinking - that it's quite likely the EU will tell May they'll approve an extension if the deal is agreed, but not otherwise. Thus (unless the MPs think the EU is bluffing) it really would become a straight choice between Deal and No Deal.
Right. But then if they really do reject the Deal I still think an emergency extension will be granted, e.g. for an election. And I think that Mrs May calculates this but hopes that MPs do not. Talk about your bluffers guide to Brexit! Who needs Vegas when we have this.
That's a pretty selective set of cases, isn't it? To take a more recent example (albeit not in the realm of academia), the Labour party just kicked out one of its MPs after she was convicted of perverting the course of justice. I don't think it's really in dispute that she caused reputational damage to the party, and that they were therefore justified in acting?
I am pointing out that Universities have dismissed Professors because they hold unpopular views before.
My analogies may be selective but -- as far as I am aware -- Dr Scott-Samuel has been allegedly fired because of something he said. He holds an unpopular view.
Of course, if Dr Scott-Samuel had been convicted of perverting the course of justice, then your analogy would be better. But, Dr Scott-Samuel has not been convicted of anything, other than holding an unpopular view.
My point is that in all cases, the individual was fired for bringing the institution they represented into disrepute (except the case under discussion, where it seems he retired some time ago and now holds an honorary position). In other words, holding unpopular views is fine, as long as you're not quoted by the media and thereby associate your employer with those views.
I disagree with your statement that "the use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel" - if I'd said what he'd said and it had got into the media with my employer's name attached, all it would take is one or two clients to not renew contracts as a result and that's millions of pounds a year in damages caused.
"Bringing into disrepute" is a rather weaselly term, though. Anyone who expresses a highly unpopular opinion could be said to bring their employer into disrepute, and indeed cause people to boycott their employer.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
Far from it. An atheist vicar would be fired.
But a vicar who described himself as a non-theist would be fine.
The Clergy Discipline Measure, which governs most ways of sacking a vicar, specifically excludes doctrine from its remit. It is much much harder than it may seem to sack a vicar for his or her beliefs whatever they are, and it always has to go through a complex statutory process. It is not true to say that 'and atheist vicar would be fired'. It just is a lot more difficult.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
If you read the article he left the University in December 2015 so it is not all obvious that he has been sacked for recent comments. Rather, he may have been misrepresenting his position with the University.
I don't think so. A Google search shows more than 700 references to him on the university website, including the page that described him as a senior lecturer until a few days ago.
They've very crudely taken an axe to a lot of those web pages, which now give "Page Not Found" errors. He's become very much a "non-person" almost overnight.
It seems the academic in Liverpool lost his job for the following.
His former employer, the University of Liverpool told the Jewish Chronicle that “Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel is no longer employed by the University.” This is following his appearance on the Richie Allen Show in February 2017, Dr Scott-Samuel was introduced as a senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool.* He told the audience that “The Rothschild family are behind a lot of the neo-liberal influence in the UK and the US. You only have to google them to look at this.”
I am not sure I am particularly comfortable with people being sacked if this is the full extent of what he said.
I would disagree strongly with his views and his politics but to be sacked for them is outrageous. I don't know what, if anything, this says about our universities in general but the University of Liverpool specifically should be ashamed and I hope he takes them to the cleaners.
There is another point: universities are meant to be places of academic excellence. Lecturers should not be peddling conspiracy theories unsupported by facts or, frankly, associating and supporting people like David Icke who is away with the fairies. Would you want your children educated by someone who paid no attention to facts or context?
On a more general point, Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” - while mostly focused on the US - is very good on how such people have tried to insinuate themselves into academic circles and make respectable the very idea of questioning whether the Holocaust happened.
People can have lots of different opinions. You can debate opinions. But you can’t make up your own facts. Conspiracy theorists - whether on the right or left - tend, deliberately, to mix up the two, precisely in order to make their conspiracy theories more respectable than they should be.
No doubt lecturers should not be pedalling unfounded conspiracy theorie - but there is increasingly in Universities a lack of tolerance to those what hold unpopular views even when backed up by undeniable facts.
If you read the article he left the University in December 2015 so it is not all obvious that he has been sacked for recent comments. Rather, he may have been misrepresenting his position with the University. Having views one does not like should not generally be grounds for sacking - but that does depend on the contractual arrangements in place. Many organisations do have rules requiring staff not to behave in a way which brings the employer into disrepute.
They often also have rules or codes about diversity / not being racist and the rest. Having representatives peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories is not really in the spirit of such codes and may be in breach of them.
There is another point: universities are meant to be places of academic excellence. Lecturers should not be peddling conspiracy theories unsupported by facts or, frankly, associating and supporting people like David Icke who is away with the fairies. Would you want your children educated by someone who paid no attention to facts or context?
On a more general point, Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” - while mostly focused on the US - is very good on how such people have tried to insinuate themselves into academic circles and make respectable the very idea of questioning whether the Holocaust happened.
People can have lots of different opinions. You can debate opinions. But you can’t make up your own facts. Conspiracy theorists - whether on the right or left - tend, deliberately, to mix up the two, precisely in order to make their conspiracy theories more respectable than they should be.
Cheers Cyclefree. I am not sure I disagree with much of what you have said there and someone else below has now noted that the story of his sacking may not be true. All I would say is that in the current climate of people being driven out of universities because of their political views I think it is important to make that stand for free speech even with someone you profoundly disagree with like a far left Anti-Semite.
I would make a stand for someone expressing an unpopular opinion. But standing up for free speech does not mean standing up for someone who deliberately peddles historical untruths, which is what Holocaust deniers do. What needs to be done with them is confront the untruths & lies they tell not indulge them on the basis of there being some debate. Facts are sacred.
The difficulty is that many anti-semites mix up the two and are also motivated by malice towards Jews. In some cases they cross over the line and do the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded room. Given the increase in attacks on Jews, in part as a result of what such people say, I think all of us - and places of learning in particular - have a duty not to give encouragement either to those shouting “Fire” or to those denying historical truths.
That's a pretty selective set of cases, isn't it? To take a more recent example (albeit not in the realm of academia), the Labour party just kicked out one of its MPs after she was convicted of perverting the course of justice. I don't think it's really in dispute that she caused reputational damage to the party, and that they were therefore justified in acting?
I am pointing out that Universities have dismissed Professors because they hold unpopular views before.
My analogies may be selective but -- as far as I am aware -- Dr Scott-Samuel has been allegedly fired because of something he said. He holds an unpopular view.
Of course, if Dr Scott-Samuel had been convicted of perverting the course of justice, then your analogy would be better. But, Dr Scott-Samuel has not been convicted of anything, other than holding an unpopular view.
My point is that in all cases, the individual was fired for bringing the institution they represented into disrepute (except the case under discussion, where it seems he retired some time ago and now holds an honorary position). In other words, holding unpopular views is fine, as long as you're not quoted by the media and thereby associate your employer with those views.
I disagree with your statement that "the use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel" - if I'd said what he'd said and it had got into the media with my employer's name attached, all it would take is one or two clients to not renew contracts as a result and that's millions of pounds a year in damages caused.
"Bringing into disrepute" is a rather weaselly term, though. Anyone who expresses a highly unpopular opinion could be said to bring their employer into disrepute, and indeed cause people to boycott their employer.
I agree entirely, although my conclusion from it is that people should be a whole lot more careful what they say and how they say it, rather than (as I think you're implying) that it should be less easy for employers to take action as a result.
Actually, that's what I'm thinking - that it's quite likely the EU will tell May they'll approve an extension if the deal is agreed, but not otherwise. Thus (unless the MPs think the EU is bluffing) it really would become a straight choice between Deal and No Deal.
Right. But then if they really do reject the Deal I still think an emergency extension will be granted, e.g. for an election. And I think that Mrs May calculates this but hopes that MPs do not. Talk about your bluffers guide to Brexit! Who needs Vegas when we have this.
Maybe. But I think it's quite possible the EU may think it's come to the end of the line.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal wasider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
What about having a duty of care to your employees. So if an employee made anti-semitic statements outside work and the business they worked for employed Jewish people, would the protection of those employees not be a valid reason?
If an employee is insulting or harassing Jewish co-workers, certainly. Outside of the workplace, I think it would have to be something awful, like appearing on a gay Nazi porn site, and expressing how you like to masturbate over footage of the Holocaust (an true case).
There is another point: universities are meant to be places of academic excellence. Lecturers should not be peddling conspiracy theories unsupported by facts or, frankly, associating and supporting people like David Icke who is away with the fairies. Would you want your children educated by someone who paid no attention to facts or context?
On a more general point, Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” - while mostly focused on the US - is very good on how such people have tried to insinuate themselves into academic circles and make respectable the very idea of questioning whether the Holocaust happened.
People can have lots of different opinions. You can debate opinions. But you can’t make up your own facts. Conspiracy theorists - whether on the right or left - tend, deliberately, to mix up the two, precisely in order to make their conspiracy theories more respectable than they should be.
Conspiracy theories are as a general rule offensive and soft-headed. I dislike them very much.
There is just the one I can think of that I give some credence to -
The Marilyn / Bobby Kennedy one. Not that it was murder or anything like that, but that she possibly mentioned him in a suicide note, or there was other material in her home that linked to him, and that he was tipped off and arranged for 'His People' to do a clear up before the Cops went in.
I would make a stand for someone expressing an unpopular opinion. But standing up for free speech does not mean standing up for someone who deliberately peddles historical untruths, which is what Holocaust deniers do. What needs to be done with them is confront the untruths & lies they tell not indulge them on the basis of there being some debate. Facts are sacred.
The difficulty is that many anti-semites mix up the two and are also motivated by malice towards Jews. In some cases they cross over the line and do the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded room. Given the increase in attacks on Jews, in part as a result of what such people say, I think all of us - and places of learning in particular - have a duty not to give encouragement either to those shouting “Fire” or to those denying historical truths.
Again I would agree. But we have moved on there from this case which was about unsavoury conspiracy theories to outright holocaust denial. I have not seen any evidence given of there being any holocaust denial in this instance.
More to the point you are on slippery ground when you start to talk about 'denying historical truths' as a catchall. Should we be prosecuting those who claim the Twin Towers was an inside job? I believe they are wrong, extremely annoying and in some cases perhaps even dangerous because of the associated incitement to action against the US Government. But unless that does become explicit and therefore criminal I don't think we should be trying to silence such people.
I do wish facts were sacred but I am afraid that in too many cases facts do genuinely depend on the eye of the beholder.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct int is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal wasider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
What about having a duty of care to your employees. So if an employee made anti-semitic statements outside work and the business they worked for employed Jewish people, would the protection of those employees not be a valid reason?
If an employee is insulting or harassing Jewish co-workers, certainly. Outside of the workplace, I think it would have to be something awful, like appearing on a gay Nazi porn site, and expressing how you like to masturbate over footage of the Holocaust (an true case).
I would add that a lot ought to turn on the seniority of the employee (this was a senior employee). The more senior the employee, the more s/he is the public face of the employer.
There is another point: universities are meant to be places of academic excellence. Lecturers should not be peddling conspiracy theories unsupported by facts or, frankly, associating and supporting people like David Icke who is away with the fairies. Would you want your children educated by someone who paid no attention to facts or context?
On a more general point, Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” - while mostly focused on the US - is very good on how such people have tried to insinuate themselves into academic circles and make respectable the very idea of questioning whether the Holocaust happened.
People can have lots of different opinions. You can debate opinions. But you can’t make up your own facts. Conspiracy theorists - whether on the right or left - tend, deliberately, to mix up the two, precisely in order to make their conspiracy theories more respectable than they should be.
Conspiracy theories are as a general rule offensive and soft-headed. I dislike them very much.
There is just the one I can think of that I give some credence to -
The Marilyn / Bobby Kennedy one. Not that it was murder or anything like that, but that she possibly mentioned him in a suicide note, or there was other material in her home that linked to him, and that he was tipped off and arranged for 'His People' to do a clear up before the Cops officially went in.
I thought it was pretty well known that the Kennedys, or their people, bought up all photos of her with the 2 Kennedy brothers. So that would not surprise me.
Poor Marilyn was a bit deluded by the end. Both worshipped and exploited, often by the same people.
Cheers Cyclefree. I am not sure I disagree with much of what you have said there and someone else below has now noted that the story of his sacking may not be true. All I would say is that in the current climate of people being driven out of universities because of their political views I think it is important to make that stand for free speech even with someone you profoundly disagree with like a far left Anti-Semite.
I would make a stand for someone expressing an unpopular opinion. But standing up for free speech does not mean standing up for someone who deliberately peddles historical untruths, which is what Holocaust deniers do. What needs to be done with them is confront the untruths & lies they tell not indulge them on the basis of there being some debate. Facts are sacred.
The difficulty is that many anti-semites mix up the two and are also motivated by malice towards Jews. In some cases they cross over the line and do the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded room. Given the increase in attacks on Jews, in part as a result of what such people say, I think all of us - and places of learning in particular - have a duty not to give encouragement either to those shouting “Fire” or to those denying historical truths.
Frankly, I think it's plain wrong to sack people for political opinions, expressed outside work, if they have remained within the law. (Unless they are in one of the small number of jobs where they're legitimately required not to express political views at all.)
A theoretical freedom of political opinion is not worth very much, if in practice you can be deprived of your livelihood for your politics.
Outside of the workplace, I think it would have to be something awful, like ... SNIP ... expressing how you like to masturbate over footage of the Holocaust (a true case).
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct int is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal wasider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
of work.
reason?
If an employee is insulting or harassing Jewish co-workers, certainly. Outside of the workplace, I think it would have to be something awful, like appearing on a gay Nazi porn site, and expressing how you like to masturbate over footage of the Holocaust (an true case).
I would add that a lot ought to turn on the seniority of the employee (this was a senior employee). The more senior the employee, the more s/he is the public face of the employer.
All of us have a private live and it’s called that because we don’t expect it to be made public.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I’m not sure what I feel about show and tell. We all have something unflattering if you look long and deep enough and, if people do find out, they will judge you.
I would make a stand for someone expressing an unpopular opinion. But standing up for free speech does not mean standing up for someone who deliberately peddles historical untruths, which is what Holocaust deniers do. What needs to be done with them is confront the untruths & lies they tell not indulge them on the basis of there being some debate. Facts are sacred.
The difficulty is that many anti-semites mix up the two and are also motivated by malice towards Jews. In some cases they cross over the line and do the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded room. Given the increase in attacks on Jews, in part as a result of what such people say, I think all of us - and places of learning in particular - have a duty not to give encouragement either to those shouting “Fire” or to those denying historical truths.
Again I would agree. But we have moved on there from this case which was about unsavoury conspiracy theories to outright holocaust denial. I have not seen any evidence given of there being any holocaust denial in this instance.
More to the point you are on slippery ground when you start to talk about 'denying historical truths' as a catchall. Should we be prosecuting those who claim the Twin Towers was an inside job? I believe they are wrong, extremely annoying and in some cases perhaps even dangerous because of the associated incitement to action against the US Government. But unless that does become explicit and therefore criminal I don't think we should be trying to silence such people.
I do wish facts were sacred but I am afraid that in too many cases facts do genuinely depend on the eye of the beholder.
I was making a general point and moving on a bit from this individual. I have no idea whether he is a Holocaust denier and would not accuse someone of this without clear evidence.
I don’t think people who tell lies about historical facts should be criminalised or prevented from talking whatever rubbish they want. What I do think we are free to do is not give them credibility - academic credibility, for instance - by debating something which is not true. You have a debate about opinions. Not about facts.
It is one reason why Holocaust deniers, for instance, want to have a debate - to put themselves on a par with real historians - to make themselves seem respectable by making it look as if this is a serious debate about historical interpretation.
It’s the equivalent of a flat earther wanting to be given the same academic credibility as a reputable scientist.
Maybe. But I think it's quite possible the EU may think it's come to the end of the line.
And you know what, if so they would have my complete sympathy and support.
I very much doubt all the workers in the EU, particularly those close to us and especially in Ireland, would be so pleased their futures were sacrificed on the EU political construct
That's a pretty selective set of cases, isn't it? To take a more recent example (albeit not in the realm of academia), the Labour party just kicked out one of its MPs after she was convicted of perverting the course of justice. I don't think it's really in dispute that she caused reputational damage to the party, and that they were therefore justified in acting?
I am pointing out that Universities have dismissed Professors because they hold unpopular views before.
My analogies may be selective but -- as far as I am aware -- Dr Scott-Samuel has been allegedly fired because of something he said. He holds an unpopular view.
Of course, if Dr Scott-Samuel had been convicted of perverting the course of justice, then your analogy would be better. But, Dr Scott-Samuel has not been convicted of anything, other than holding an unpopular view.
My point is that in all cases, the individual was fired for bringing the institution they represented into disrepute (except the case under discussion, where it seems he retired some time ago and now holds an honorary position). In other words, holding unpopular views is fine, as long as you're not quoted by the media and thereby associate your employer with those views.
I disagree with your statement that "the use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel" - if I'd said what he'd said and it had got into the media with my employer's name attached, all it would take is one or two clients to not renew contracts as a result and that's millions of pounds a year in damages caused.
"Bringing into disrepute" is a rather weaselly term, though. Anyone who expresses a highly unpopular opinion could be said to bring their employer into disrepute, and indeed cause people to boycott their employer.
Hence, “political correctness”.
It would have been politically incorrect to express pro-Jewish sentiment in 1930s Germany, for instance.
Is it worth installing Cat 6 cable in my house? There is pretty good Broadband there already?
If you mean install an ethernet network when you already have reasonable wifi I don't see what the point would be, unless you want to shunt large quantities of data between computers.
Again I would agree. But we have moved on there from this case which was about unsavoury conspiracy theories to outright holocaust denial. I have not seen any evidence given of there being any holocaust denial in this instance.
More to the point you are on slippery ground when you start to talk about 'denying historical truths' as a catchall. Should we be prosecuting those who claim the Twin Towers was an inside job? I believe they are wrong, extremely annoying and in some cases perhaps even dangerous because of the associated incitement to action against the US Government. But unless that does become explicit and therefore criminal I don't think we should be trying to silence such people.
I do wish facts were sacred but I am afraid that in too many cases facts do genuinely depend on the eye of the beholder.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
Far from it. An atheist vicar would be fired.
But a vicar who described himself as a non-theist would be fine.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
My experience of the Anglican clergy is that they’re mostly embarrassed by, and slightly apologetic for, being Anglican.
Outside of the workplace, I think it would have to be something awful, like ... SNIP ... expressing how you like to masturbate over footage of the Holocaust (a true case).
Not Toby Young again. Jeez, that guy.
Not Toby Young.
He was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham.
I very much doubt all the workers in the EU, particularly those close to us and especially in Ireland, would be so pleased their futures were sacrificed on the EU political construct
Is it worth installing Cat 6 cable in my house? There is pretty good Broadband there already?
If you mean install an ethernet network when you already have reasonable wifi I don't see what the point would be, unless you want to shunt large quantities of data between computers.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct int is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal wasider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
of work.
reason?
If an employee is insulting or harassing Jewish co-workers, certainly. Outside of the workplace, I think it would have to be something awful, like appearing on a gay Nazi porn site, and expressing how you like to masturbate over footage of the Holocaust (an true case).
I would add that a lot ought to turn on the seniority of the employee (this was a senior employee). The more senior the employee, the more s/he is the public face of the employer.
All of us have a private live and it’s called that because we don’t expect it to be made public.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I’m not sure what I feel about show and tell. We all have something unflattering if you look long and deep enough and, if people do find out, they will judge you.
It’s perfectly possible to have a private life. You can’t though claim some opinion is private if you present it publicly using and benefiting from your professional capacity.
BTW I hope you are enjoying life with your baby daughter.
I was making a general point and moving on a bit from this individual. I have no idea whether he is a Holocaust denier and would not accuse someone of this without clear evidence.
I don’t think people who tell lies about historical facts should be criminalised or prevented from talking whatever rubbish they want. What I do think we are free to do is not give them credibility - academic credibility, for instance - by debating something which is not true. You have a debate about opinions. Not about facts.
It is one reason why Holocaust deniers, for instance, want to have a debate - to put themselves on a par with real historians - to make themselves seem respectable by making it look as if this is a serious debate about historical interpretation.
It’s the equivalent of a flat earther wanting to be given the same academic credibility as a reputable scientist.
I would agree that the issue of holocaust denial is a special case both because of the nature of the events and the ulterior motives of those who seek to muddy the waters about them in order to justify or excuse race hatred.
More genuinely though I think you are wrong about debating opinions not facts. The idea that in either science or even more so history there are settled facts is really quite removed from the truth. I am not talking about the big things like anti-vaccines or flat earthers or those who believe the literal word of the bible as historical fact. They are easy to deal with.
But there are many things that were considered settled facts only a decade ago which are now almost entirely discounted. The Anglo-Saxon invasions is one such case, taught as a series of undeniable facts for decades and now almost entirely discounted. As some of our more erstwhile historians on here will tell you, there is very little in the way of 'facts' in most of our history not least because of it generally being written from the perspective of the survivors.
Except of course the fact that Hannibal was the greatest general of the ancient world.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are cases where it would be entirely reasonable to fire an employee for expressing opinions that his employer finds objectionable, eg if a clergyman said that he was an atheist. But, those will be unusual.
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
Far from it. An atheist vicar would be fired.
But a vicar who described himself as a non-theist would be fine.
What about a Conservative or pro-Brexit vicar?
Somewhat to my surprise, Rev. Giles Fraser is very pro-Brexit.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct int is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal wasider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
of work.
reason?
If an employee is insulting or harassing Jewish co-workers, certainly. Outside of the workplace, I think it would have to be something awful, like appearing on a gay Nazi porn site, and expressing how you like to masturbate over footage of the Holocaust (an true case).
I would add that a lot ought to turn on the seniority of the employee (this was a senior employee). The more senior the employee, the more s/he is the public face of the employer.
All of us have a private live and it’s called that because we don’t expect it to be made public.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I’m not sure what I feel about show and tell. We all have something unflattering if you look long and deep enough and, if people do find out, they will judge you.
It’s perfectly possible to have a private life. You can’t though claim some opinion is private if you present it publicly using and benefiting from your professional capacity.
BTW I hope you are enjoying life with your baby daughter.
I am very much, thank you. Certainly puts a lot of things into perspective!
Section 8 (3) of the Clergy Discipline Measure applies. Action can't be taken against a vicar for any 'lawful political opinion or activity', so it's the same as with theological beliefs, in general vicars can't be sacked for them. Giles Fraser (may he live for ever) is safe.
Cheers Cyclefree. I am not sure I disagree with much of what you have said there and someone else below has now noted that the story of his sacking may not be true. All I would say is that in the current climate of people being driven out of universities because of their political views I think it is important to make that stand for free speech even with someone you profoundly disagree with like a far left Anti-Semite.
I would make a stand for someone expressing an unpopular opinion. But standing up for free speech does not mean standing up for someone who deliberately peddles historical untruths, which is what Holocaust deniers do. What needs to be done with them is confront the untruths & lies they tell not indulge them on the basis of there being some debate. Facts are sacred.
The difficulty is that many anti-semites mix up the two and are also motivated by malice towards Jews. In some cases they cross over the line and do the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded room. Given the increase in attacks on Jews, in part as a result of what such people say, I think all of us - and places of learning in particular - have a duty not to give encouragement either to those shouting “Fire” or to those denying historical truths.
Frankly, I think it's plain wrong to sack people for political opinions, expressed outside work, if they have remained within the law. (Unless they are in one of the small number of jobs where they're legitimately required not to express political views at all.)
A theoretical freedom of political opinion is not worth very much, if in practice you can be deprived of your livelihood for your politics.
Personally, I feel the same. I don't think my politics would particularly embarrass my employer, but I prefer to be cloaked in a pseudonym online in order to keep work at arms length.
Again I would agree. But we have moved on there from this case which was about unsavoury conspiracy theories to outright holocaust denial. I have not seen any evidence given of there being any holocaust denial in this instance.
More to the point you are on slippery ground when you start to talk about 'denying historical truths' as a catchall. Should we be prosecuting those who claim the Twin Towers was an inside job? I believe they are wrong, extremely annoying and in some cases perhaps even dangerous because of the associated incitement to action against the US Government. But unless that does become explicit and therefore criminal I don't think we should be trying to silence such people.
I do wish facts were sacred but I am afraid that in too many cases facts do genuinely depend on the eye of the beholder.
KNOW.
I was trying not to be pedantic about it but I accept your correction
I was making a general point and moving on a bit from this individual. I have no idea whether he is a Holocaust denier and would not accuse someone of this without clear evidence.
I don’t think people who tell lies about historical facts should be criminalised or prevented from talking whatever rubbish they want. What I do think we are free to do is not give them credibility - academic credibility, for instance - by debating something which is not true. You have a debate about opinions. Not about facts.
It is one reason why Holocaust deniers, for instance, want to have a debate - to put themselves on a par with real historians - to make themselves seem respectable by making it look as if this is a serious debate about historical interpretation.
It’s the equivalent of a flat earther wanting to be given the same academic credibility as a reputable scientist.
I would agree that the issue of holocaust denial is a special case both because of the nature of the events and the ulterior motives of those who seek to muddy the waters about them in order to justify or excuse race hatred.
More genuinely though I think you are wrong about debating opinions not facts. The idea that in either science or even more so history there are settled facts is really quite removed from the truth. I am not talking about the big things like anti-vaccines or flat earthers or those who believe the literal word of the bible as historical fact. They are easy to deal with.
But there are many things that were considered settled facts only a decade ago which are now almost entirely discounted. The Anglo-Saxon invasions is one such case, taught as a series of undeniable facts for decades and now almost entirely discounted. As some of our more erstwhile historians on here will tell you, there is very little in the way of 'facts' in most of our history not least because of it generally being written from the perspective of the survivors.
Except of course the act that Hannibal was the greatest general of the ancient world.
The fate of the Greenland Vikings is another "fact" that was disproved by archaeology.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. So long as the university can show that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal (conduct in this case), that it followed a fair procedure (disciplinary hearing) and acted reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal then it is a fair dismissal. It may not be able to do any of that, but it's impossible to say without knowing more whether this dismissal was in any way unlawful.
Misconduct need not be confined to the workplace. It may be potentially fair to dismiss an employee for conduct outside of the workplace "so long as in some respect or other it affects the employee, or could be thought to affect the employee, when he is doing his work" - in this case the Liverpool's reputation could be thought to have been damaged. Doesn't really matter whether you consider what he said to be correct or otherwise.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
My experience of the Anglican clergy is that they’re mostly embarrassed by, and slightly apologetic for, being Anglican.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
I did once meet a motorcycling clergyman who had a patch jacket over his leathers proclaiming "Born to be Mild"
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
I very much doubt all the workers in the EU, particularly those close to us and especially in Ireland, would be so pleased their futures were sacrificed on the EU political construct
Is it worth installing Cat 6 cable in my house? There is pretty good Broadband there already?
I use tv and video streaming, normal internet browsing, some data heavy stuff like Bloomberg and mobile calls.
I have never heard of Cat 6 so I’m going to say not needed.
Same. Like Alexa or Amazon Echo a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist.
You can’t beat a pen and paper in the hallway.
Google Home and Echo Show, etc etc, are brilliant. Trouble is, it takes a while to realise how clever and fantastic they are, and all the potential locked inside them. It's not instant, it's not like the first time you picked up a smartphone or an iPad: they were obviously brilliantly useful from the start.
But digital assistants ARE amazing, even if it takes a few weeks or months for this to be apparent, and they will only get more amazing, and ubiquitous. Soon we will all have them.
I honestly think they have the potential to change human society. The way we live our daily lives.
They are all using a natural language parser that makes The Hobbit from 1982 look like advanced witchcraft.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
It seems pretty unfair, considering how long Tim Farron managed to hold on to his job.
On topic, the recent hounding out of the lady who formerly ran the Electoral Reform Society for having the temerity to have spoken - in her previous role - at a UKIP conference, was a bit off.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
Well he accused gay students of being sinners andv not straight students. Isn't that treating them differently?
I don’t think people who tell lies about historical facts should be criminalised or prevented from talking whatever rubbish they want. What I do think we are free to do is not give them credibility - academic credibility, for instance - by debating something which is not true. You have a debate about opinions. Not about facts.
I would agree that the issue of holocaust denial is a special case both because of the nature of the events and the ulterior motives of those who seek to muddy the waters about them in order to justify or excuse race hatred.
More genuinely though I think you are wrong about debating opinions not facts. The idea that in either science or even more so history there are settled facts is really quite removed from the truth. I am not talking about the big things like anti-vaccines or flat earthers or those who believe the literal word of the bible as historical fact. They are easy to deal with.
But there are many things that were considered settled facts only a decade ago which are now almost entirely discounted. The Anglo-Saxon invasions is one such case, taught as a series of undeniable facts for decades and now almost entirely discounted. As some of our more erstwhile historians on here will tell you, there is very little in the way of 'facts' in most of our history not least because of it generally being written from the perspective of the survivors.
Except of course the fact that Hannibal was the greatest general of the ancient world.
That is a fair point. I would classify that as normal historical debate, as we learn new facts, uncover new sources or understand the context better.
So to take another example: we know quite a lot of established facts about the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The debate about what those facts mean will go on for a very long time, not least because new facts will come to light and what is known will be viewed through different perspectives or because some facts will be focused on more than others.
That is debate about events and their meaning.
But someone who denied that 3000 or so people died at the hands of terrorists or that the British Army had soldiers on the ground in NI or that people died at the hands of the Paras on Bloody Sunday or that the IRA was responsible for killing Lord Mounbatten, who claimed that these things did not happen cannot be part of that debate because they are starting from a basis which is simply wrong. You cannot have a debate about what happened, its importance and meaning with someone who refuses to accept what we know to be true - even if we cannot know everything and cannot, in some cases, know things with 100% certainty.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
The Farron dilemma.
His solution was to lie about what he believed until he thought it didn't matter anymore. Not ideal really of course.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
Well he accused gay students of being sinners andv not straight students. Isn't that treating them differently?
Not necessarily. Making a statement of faith is not necessarily an accusation. Depending on what he wrote he may simply be repeating what is a standard belief among some Christians. It could well be no more objectionable than pointing out that adultery is contrary to one of the 10 Commandments. That does not necessarily mean that someone is treating adulterers differently.
Second, fundamentalist Christians think that everyone is a sinner, that that is the natural condition of mankind, original sin and all that.
Having a private opinion is one thing. Acting on it in such a way that he discriminated against, refused to teach or speak to gay students would be different. That would be cause for criticism.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
Well he accused gay students of being sinners andv not straight students. Isn't that treating them differently?
He would almost certainly take the view that everyone, himself included, is a sinner.
Is it worth installing Cat 6 cable in my house? There is pretty good Broadband there already?
I use tv and video streaming, normal internet browsing, some data heavy stuff like Bloomberg and mobile calls.
I have never heard of Cat 6 so I’m going to say not needed.
Same. Like Alexa or Amazon Echo a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist.
You can’t beat a pen and paper in the hallway.
Google Home and Echo Show, etc etc, are brilliant. Trouble is, it takes a while to realise how clever and fantastic they are, and all the potential locked inside them. It's not instant, it's not like the first time you picked up a smartphone or an iPad: they were obviously brilliantly useful from the start.
But digital assistants ARE amazing, even if it takes a few weeks or months for this to be apparent, and they will only get more amazing, and ubiquitous. Soon we will all have them.
I honestly think they have the potential to change human society. The way we live our daily lives.
Nah. The help I need is in cooking meals, gardening, DIY or cleaning the house.
Making lists for me and ordering stuff online isn’t one of them.
Is it worth installing Cat 6 cable in my house? There is pretty good Broadband there already?
I use tv and video streaming, normal internet browsing, some data heavy stuff like Bloomberg and mobile calls.
I have never heard of Cat 6 so I’m going to say not needed.
Same. Like Alexa or Amazon Echo a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist.
You can’t beat a pen and paper in the hallway.
Google Home and Echo Show, etc etc, are brilliant. Trouble is, it takes a while to realise how clever and fantastic they are, and all the potential locked inside them. It's not instant, it's not like the first time you picked up a smartphone or an iPad: they were obviously brilliantly useful from the start.
But digital assistants ARE amazing, even if it takes a few weeks or months for this to be apparent, and they will only get more amazing, and ubiquitous. Soon we will all have them.
I honestly think they have the potential to change human society. The way we live our daily lives.
In the way that servants once did, for those rich enough to have them? But without the need to pay for them or treat them nicely, you mean?
My husband occasionally uses his Alexa thingummy as does my son.
I find it risible, them sitting there shouting at no-one in particular. Still, I suppose it’s good practice for the old people’s homes I’m occasionally tempted to put them in.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
The Farron dilemma.
Though in Farron's case it was rather relevant to his day-job.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
My experience of the Anglican clergy is that they’re mostly embarrassed by, and slightly apologetic for, being Anglican.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
I did once meet a motorcycling clergyman who had a patch jacket over his leathers proclaiming "Born to be Mild"
I expected them to have something to say on Anglican liturgy or practices.
By and large, they don’t, except to cough awkwardly into their tea and mumble about being the same as all Christians, and then change the subject.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
The Farron dilemma.
Though in Farron's case it was rather relevant to his day-job.
I thought Farron voted for gay rights throughout his time as leader. If so, what did he do wrong? Isn’t that the essence of tolerance - having a private view but voting in accordance with the policies of the party he led?
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
The Farron dilemma.
Though in Farron's case it was rather relevant to his day-job.
I thought Farron voted for gay rights throughout his time as leader. If so, what did he do wrong? Isn’t that the essence of tolerance - having a private view but voting in accordance with the policies of the party he led?
He seemed entirely unable to answer that with any kind of conviction.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
The Farron dilemma.
Though in Farron's case it was rather relevant to his day-job.
I thought Farron voted for gay rights throughout his time as leader. If so, what did he do wrong? Isn’t that the essence of tolerance - having a private view but voting in accordance with the policies of the party he led?
I don't have a problem with whatever his views were precisely, as you say its actions that matter more, but he that he lied about his views makes it far worse, particularly when some of the more intense LDs were getting jolly cross about the focus on his deliberately vague views.
Is it worth installing Cat 6 cable in my house? There is pretty good Broadband there already?
I use tv and video streaming, normal internet browsing, some data heavy stuff like Bloomberg and mobile calls.
I have never heard of Cat 6 so I’m going to say not needed.
Same. Like Alexa or Amazon Echo a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist.
You can’t beat a pen and paper in the hallway.
Google Home and Echo Show, etc etc, are brilliant. Trouble is, it takes a while to realise how clever and fantastic they are, and all the potential locked inside them. It's not instant, it's not like the first time you picked up a smartphone or an iPad: they were obviously brilliantly useful from the start.
But digital assistants ARE amazing, even if it takes a few weeks or months for this to be apparent, and they will only get more amazing, and ubiquitous. Soon we will all have them.
I honestly think they have the potential to change human society. The way we live our daily lives.
Nah. The help I need is in cooking meals, gardening, DIY or cleaning the house.
Making lists for me and ordering stuff online isn’t one of them.
“Alexa play Chris de Burgh’s greatest hits” is about as close to technological perfection as it gets.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
The Farron dilemma.
Though in Farron's case it was rather relevant to his day-job.
I thought Farron voted for gay rights throughout his time as leader. If so, what did he do wrong? Isn’t that the essence of tolerance - having a private view but voting in accordance with the policies of the party he led?
Throughout his time as leader perhaps, but he was only leader for two years.
He certainly didn't have a history of voting for gay rights. Probably the worst example is that he actually voted against outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
Please stay. I don’t want to be the only (I think) woman in the village.......
I am just joining in less. Observing from the sidelines, so to speak.
I can really understand that. There are many on here really hurting and the damage this mess is doing is undeniable.
At times the forum gets rather nasty and it does not help to see a way through when so much is polarised
However, it is important as wide a view as possible is expressed from all sides and non
I understand what you are saying, but I think we have reached the stage where any debate is utterly pointless. We have no opposition in the country and a "governing" party in hock to its lunatic fringe and a PM looking to prop up her zombie deal to the end of March.
I have reached the point that I am now looking forward to a hard No-Deal Brexit just to see how the ultras explain the mess. It could be the only redeeming feature of the whole shambles.
Employment lawyer here. Very few dismissals are automatically unfair. Those that are fall into special categories such as whistleblowing, maternity etc. Additionally some dismissals are unlawful if they are on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
Cambridge University (or more particularly Trinity College) sacked Bertrand Russell for expressing pacifist views/divorce.
Cambridge University dismissed J.B.S. Haldane (later reinstated after his battle with the Sex Viri) for Communism/divorce.
Swansea University sacked Saunders Lewis (founder of Plaid Cymru) for nationalism/political agitation.
In each instance, the University claimed its reputation was being damaged by the individual.
In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it is those urging sacking or dismissal who have damaged the reputation of the universities.
The use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel.
If there are anti-semitic incidents that took place on campus while he was teaching, that is a different matter. Then and only then should he be dismissed by Liverpool University.
There are
Generally, it 's reasonable to discipline an employee for bad-mouthing his employer, libel, breach of confidence, serious criminal conduct, or for falsely claiming to speak for his employer, but not for expressing objectionable opinions outside of work.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
My experience of the Anglican clergy is that they’re mostly embarrassed by, and slightly apologetic for, being Anglican.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
I did once meet a motorcycling clergyman who had a patch jacket over his leathers proclaiming "Born to be Mild"
I expected them to have something to say on Anglican liturgy or practices.
By and large, they don’t, except to cough awkwardly into their tea and mumble about being the same as all Christians, and then change the subject.
Personally I object to Bishops as being un-Biblical, and child baptism too, as well as a number of othe C of E practices. That is why I am a Non-conformist Christian, but Anglicans don't seem so hardline on these things as in the 17th Century.
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
The Farron dilemma.
Though in Farron's case it was rather relevant to his day-job.
I thought Farron voted for gay rights throughout his time as leader. If so, what did he do wrong? Isn’t that the essence of tolerance - having a private view but voting in accordance with the policies of the party he led?
Throughout his time as leader perhaps, but he was only leader for two years.
He certainly didn't have a history of voting for gay rights. Probably the worst example is that he actually voted against outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
Is it worth installing Cat 6 cable in my house? There is pretty good Broadband there already?
I use tv and video streaming, normal internet browsing, some data heavy stuff like Bloomberg and mobile calls.
I have never heard of Cat 6 so I’m going to say not needed.
Same. Like Alexa or Amazon Echo a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist.
You can’t beat a pen and paper in the hallway.
Google Home and Echo Show, etc etc, are brilliant. Trouble is, it takes a while to realise how clever and fantastic they are, and all the potential locked inside them. It's not instant, it's not like the first time you picked up a smartphone or an iPad: they were obviously brilliantly useful from the start.
But digital assistants ARE amazing, even if it takes a few weeks or months for this to be apparent, and they will only get more amazing, and ubiquitous. Soon we will all have them.
I honestly think they have the potential to change human society. The way we live our daily lives.
Can you give me a clue as to what I might do with one - I mean putting on a podcast or radio station by asking is cool but hardly world changing
Here is another instance (I have withheld names but the case is a real one, and in fact still ongoing).
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
The Farron dilemma.
Though in Farron's case it was rather relevant to his day-job.
I thought Farron voted for gay rights throughout his time as leader. If so, what did he do wrong? Isn’t that the essence of tolerance - having a private view but voting in accordance with the policies of the party he led?
Throughout his time as leader perhaps, but he was only leader for two years.
He certainly didn't have a history of voting for gay rights. Probably the worst example is that he actually voted against outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
Jeez, our primary negotiator talking loudly in a bar... Happy hour, or amateur hour?
It paints a radically different view of Theresa May's strategy, though not one that seems to make much sense - running down the clock in order to threaten MPs at the last minute with ................ a long extension??
On Olly Robbins ... I am a humble B2B journalist and now editor in chief of some 27 years standing. I would be very uneasy running a story from one of my team about the contents of what was clearly a private conversation occuring in a bar at the end of a long day. It doesn’t seem right to me. Maybe that’s why I’m B2B!!
Comments
My analogies may be selective but -- as far as I am aware -- Dr Scott-Samuel has been allegedly fired because of something he said. He holds an unpopular view.
Of course, if Dr Scott-Samuel had been convicted of perverting the course of justice, then your analogy would be better. But, Dr Scott-Samuel has not been convicted of anything, other than holding an unpopular view.
I disagree with your statement that "the use of “reputational damage” to fire someone is always the last refuge of a scoundrel" - if I'd said what he'd said and it had got into the media with my employer's name attached, all it would take is one or two clients to not renew contracts as a result and that's millions of pounds a year in damages caused.
They often also have rules or codes about diversity / not being racist and the rest. Having representatives peddling anti-semitic conspiracy theories is not really in the spirit of such codes and may be in breach of them.
There is another point: universities are meant to be places of academic excellence. Lecturers should not be peddling conspiracy theories unsupported by facts or, frankly, associating and supporting people like David Icke who is away with the fairies. Would you want your children educated by someone who paid no attention to facts or context?
On a more general point, Deborah Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” - while mostly focused on the US - is very good on how such people have tried to insinuate themselves into academic circles and make respectable the very idea of questioning whether the Holocaust happened.
People can have lots of different opinions. You can debate opinions. But you can’t make up your own facts. Conspiracy theorists - whether on the right or left - tend, deliberately, to mix up the two, precisely in order to make their conspiracy theories more respectable than they should be.
But a vicar who described himself as a non-theist would be fine.
In the Church of England, I thought it was practically compulsory for clergymen to be atheists
Far from it. An atheist vicar would be fired.
But a vicar who described himself as a non-theist would be fine.
The Clergy Discipline Measure, which governs most ways of sacking a vicar, specifically excludes doctrine from its remit. It is much much harder than it may seem to sack a vicar for his or her beliefs whatever they are, and it always has to go through a complex statutory process. It is not true to say that 'and atheist vicar would be fired'. It just is a lot more difficult.
They've very crudely taken an axe to a lot of those web pages, which now give "Page Not Found" errors. He's become very much a "non-person" almost overnight.
The difficulty is that many anti-semites mix up the two and are also motivated by malice towards Jews. In some cases they cross over the line and do the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded room. Given the increase in attacks on Jews, in part as a result of what such people say, I think all of us - and places of learning in particular - have a duty not to give encouragement either to those shouting “Fire” or to those denying historical truths.
There is just the one I can think of that I give some credence to -
The Marilyn / Bobby Kennedy one. Not that it was murder or anything like that, but that she possibly mentioned him in a suicide note, or there was other material in her home that linked to him, and that he was tipped off and arranged for 'His People' to do a clear up before the Cops went in.
Is it worth installing Cat 6 cable in my house? There is pretty good Broadband there already?
More to the point you are on slippery ground when you start to talk about 'denying historical truths' as a catchall. Should we be prosecuting those who claim the Twin Towers was an inside job? I believe they are wrong, extremely annoying and in some cases perhaps even dangerous because of the associated incitement to action against the US Government. But unless that does become explicit and therefore criminal I don't think we should be trying to silence such people.
I do wish facts were sacred but I am afraid that in too many cases facts do genuinely depend on the eye of the beholder.
Poor Marilyn was a bit deluded by the end. Both worshipped and exploited, often by the same people.
I have never heard of Cat 6 so I’m going to say not needed.
A theoretical freedom of political opinion is not worth very much, if in practice you can be deprived of your livelihood for your politics.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I’m not sure what I feel about show and tell. We all have something unflattering if you look long and deep enough and, if people do find out, they will judge you.
Come to think of it, you may have a point...
I don’t think people who tell lies about historical facts should be criminalised or prevented from talking whatever rubbish they want. What I do think we are free to do is not give them credibility - academic credibility, for instance - by debating something which is not true. You have a debate about opinions. Not about facts.
It is one reason why Holocaust deniers, for instance, want to have a debate - to put themselves on a par with real historians - to make themselves seem respectable by making it look as if this is a serious debate about historical interpretation.
It’s the equivalent of a flat earther wanting to be given the same academic credibility as a reputable scientist.
It would have been politically incorrect to express pro-Jewish sentiment in 1930s Germany, for instance.
He was Assistant Director of Housing at Hammersmith & Fulham.
BTW I hope you are enjoying life with your baby daughter.
More genuinely though I think you are wrong about debating opinions not facts. The idea that in either science or even more so history there are settled facts is really quite removed from the truth. I am not talking about the big things like anti-vaccines or flat earthers or those who believe the literal word of the bible as historical fact. They are easy to deal with.
But there are many things that were considered settled facts only a decade ago which are now almost entirely discounted. The Anglo-Saxon invasions is one such case, taught as a series of undeniable facts for decades and now almost entirely discounted. As some of our more erstwhile historians on here will tell you, there is very little in the way of 'facts' in most of our history not least because of it generally being written from the perspective of the survivors.
Except of course the fact that Hannibal was the greatest general of the ancient world.
What about a Conservative or pro-Brexit vicar?
Section 8 (3) of the Clergy Discipline Measure applies. Action can't be taken against a vicar for any 'lawful political opinion or activity', so it's the same as with theological beliefs, in general vicars can't be sacked for them. Giles Fraser (may he live for ever) is safe.
Seriously, though, incredible not to keep that info to himself. What a wanker.
You can’t beat a pen and paper in the hallway.
I did once meet a motorcycling clergyman who had a patch jacket over his leathers proclaiming "Born to be Mild"
A very prestigious institution hired as a Professor (in a science subject) someone who is a fundamentalist Christian. This individual had previously written a blog posting in which he described homosexuality as a sin.
The institution is now facing calls to dismiss the Professor.
There is no evidence that the Professor has treated gay students any differently from straight students.
Primative beyond.
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, children.
So to take another example: we know quite a lot of established facts about the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The debate about what those facts mean will go on for a very long time, not least because new facts will come to light and what is known will be viewed through different perspectives or because some facts will be focused on more than others.
That is debate about events and their meaning.
But someone who denied that 3000 or so people died at the hands of terrorists or that the British Army had soldiers on the ground in NI or that people died at the hands of the Paras on Bloody Sunday or that the IRA was responsible for killing Lord Mounbatten, who claimed that these things did not happen cannot be part of that debate because they are starting from a basis which is simply wrong. You cannot have a debate about what happened, its importance and meaning with someone who refuses to accept what we know to be true - even if we cannot know everything and cannot, in some cases, know things with 100% certainty.
Who knows
Second, fundamentalist Christians think that everyone is a sinner, that that is the natural condition of mankind, original sin and all that.
Having a private opinion is one thing. Acting on it in such a way that he discriminated against, refused to teach or speak to gay students would be different. That would be cause for criticism.
Making lists for me and ordering stuff online isn’t one of them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/02/12/mark-carney-brexit-acid-test-new-era-democracy-free-trade/
My husband occasionally uses his Alexa thingummy as does my son.
I find it risible, them sitting there shouting at no-one in particular. Still, I suppose it’s good practice for the old people’s homes I’m occasionally tempted to put them in.
By and large, they don’t, except to cough awkwardly into their tea and mumble about being the same as all Christians, and then change the subject.
At times the forum gets rather nasty and it does not help to see a way through when so much is polarised
However, it is important as wide a view as possible is expressed from all sides and non
He certainly didn't have a history of voting for gay rights. Probably the worst example is that he actually voted against outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
I have reached the point that I am now looking forward to a hard No-Deal Brexit just to see how the ultras explain the mess. It could be the only redeeming feature of the whole shambles.
Cleary, we live in interesting times.
https://imgur.com/tWM0KIY
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/20/lib-dem-tim-farron-forgets-he-voted-against-equality-law-and-calls-for-end-to-state-church/
I am just so sorry so many are hurting no matter their views and like most, yearn for calmer waters and a kinder society