The R number, [Prof Dingwall] said, is inflated by cases in care homes and in hospitals but in the community he believes there are now large swathes of the country with almost no community transmission.
Let's hope he is right, and cases continue to fall into the autumn.
I keep coming back to the point: where is the reservoir of the virus for this second wave coming from? In the SW, for example, Covid is now rare as hen's teeth. We go through the motions - and that helps ensure that it isn't a thing in our lives. But we got it into this country from at least 1,300 sources from holidaymakers and business travellers in France, Italy and Spain. I don't see that being repeated.
As long as we are sensible about people travelling to hot-spots like Florida - and their responsibilties upon their return - then I reckon we should be OK. Just come down hard on anybody taking risks. (I realise my view is in direct contradiction to a friend's son who is involved with the planning around Britannia hospitals - and who thinks the worst of Covid is yet to come this winter. But then he would, wouldn't he!)
What are the Britannia hospitals vs the nightingales?
While I agree with much of what the article says about Western decay, I also think that it reveals a total misunderstanding of the CPC's reality, which is that the only way for it to maintain its grip in China is to ratchet down on the domestic population and to become more assertive abroad. Increasing prosperity means increasing expectations - not only materially but in quality of life terms, too. That is a permanent battle for the CPC. It si no lomger enough to make sure that people do not go hungry. China's actions, like those of Putin in Russia, speak of a fundamental institutional weakness, not a strength.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
I'm not sure how far my ancestors in rural West Wales 'profited' much, if at all, from the Triangular Trade.
You may be surprised. There is a great link to where slaveowner compensation was paid, and whom to on here:
It can be searched by name or geography. Several people with my exact forename and surname were compensated. I dont think we were related, but it does give pause for thought.
And anyone should be impressed by this superb graphic, click on individual ships for details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
Ok I suppose I won't cancel you then. Reparations could only be symbolic since otherwise the sums would be huge. Symbolic gestures can sometimes be helpful but in this case? No, probably not. Doubt it will be happening in any case.
The Irish Free State pinched 3 houses that would otherwise belong to my uncle. Can we have them back please.
Though unlike the USSR where communist Eastern Europe was on the border with the West and had to be held back by NATO, China is on the other side of the world and has shown no sign of expanding territorially beyond Taiwan even with expanded influence in Africa
The South China Sea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia say Hello.
What a poor piece by Alastair Meeks. The 'shrillest' voices are those on the reactionary right? Well yeah, no surprise there. Is he also unaware of the dozens of broadly liberal-minded (even left-leaning) academics and commentators who have expressed major concern about all of this? Or does he only have pictures of Sarah Vine, Toby Young and Nigel Farage inside his head. Sorry Alastair but you are out of touch.
Are you seriously suggesting that most of the whining about "cancel culture" does not come from the reactionary right?
Yes his counting is suspect for a chancellor , his imaginary 800M for Scotland turned out to be just 22M just as Scottish Finance Minister said, confirmed by IFS. Tories are lying toerags.
Surely the Government should stay well out of universities. If they want to no platform people that's their business. You have the right to call that out but why should the Government be getting involved.
Because the government is paying.
But if the University of Buckingham or Grayling’s thing (new college of the humanities?) want to do that it’s up to them
Surely the Government should stay well out of universities. If they want to no platform people that's their business. You have the right to call that out but why should the Government be getting involved.
Because the government is paying.
But if the University of Buckingham or Grayling’s thing (new college of the humanities?) want to do that it’s up to them
The students are paying? That's what the student loans are for.
Surely the Government should stay well out of universities. If they want to no platform people that's their business. You have the right to call that out but why should the Government be getting involved.
I suppose you want to see the government pull all funding for universities too then?
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
Polarisation and "culture wars" are a good thing. It's how the battle of ideas is played out and with true free speech good ideas can rise to the fore and bad ideas get exposed for what they are.
Countries that appear "unified" as they don't tolerate dissent may be strong temporarily from that but long term their problems will mount as the lack of dissent really means a lack of challenge, a lack of understanding and a failure to address problems.
Our divisions are our strength not our weakness. That is why any attempts to compel homogeneity of thought must be opposed.
Up to a point.
Yes, Enforced National Unity is a bad thing, whether it's a tyranny of left or right, nationalism or globalism. However, there are different ways of doing the battle of ideas.
One is the sort of thing you got in (say) the 50s and 60s. Two parties, with clearly distinct worldviews, but significant consensus and seeking expand through the middle ground, and that being where the action was. And since both parties were seeking to expand into the same space, there was a battle there.
The other is the sort of thing that happened / is happening in many parts of the West in recent years. Parties being more concerned about their extreme flanks, whether that's the Momentum wing of Labour or the Brexit Party vs. the Conservatives. Elsewhere, that's led to Vox and Podemos in Spain, or Trumpism in the USA. It's not the same sort of battle. It's mostly two bunkers lobbing missiles at each other. In that dynamic, you win by indulging your side but being marginally less awful than your opponent. Macron - le Pen. Trump - Clinton. Johnson - Corbyn.
Though unlike the USSR where communist Eastern Europe was on the border with the West and had to be held back by NATO, China is on the other side of the world and has shown no sign of expanding territorially beyond Taiwan even with expanded influence in Africa
The South China Sea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia say Hello.
Has China shown any sign of wanting to invade those nations like Taiwan?
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Getting them fired and making them unemployable by creating a twitter storm over something
Loss of job purely for saying something controversial. If only we could stick to this definition.
In my view it’s entirely analogous to the SHAC campaign of protesting against service providers to the pharmaceutical industry. That was wrong and this is wrong.
(The second part of the definition “making them unemployable” is arguably more important)
once upon a time most companies paid in company scrip that could only be spent in company stores. While you can argue well if you dont like it change jobs it wasnt so easy. Laws were passed to stop it
1) Do you agree with those laws or do you regard being paid in company scrip should be allowed
2) if you answer the law was right what is the difference between that and telling companies they have to also accept hard currency and not just cards. In the first the company issuing the scrips dictates where you can purchase things in the second card issuing companies and dont forget there are really only two are limiting where you can shop by giving you a card or not
I have no qualms with people getting a benefit in kind of company scrip so long as other laws are followed including getting paid a minimum wage in hard currency and getting taxed on their benefit in kind.
2: The difference is that cards are hard currency. If you spend pound sterlings in coins, pound sterlings in notes, pound sterlings by BACS transfer, pound sterlings by cheques or pound sterlings by cards your hard currency is pound sterling either way.
If there is a role for the government to pay it is to ensure everyone has access to being able to get a card. A universal service obligation on banks even if it's only for prepayment or debit cards without borrowing options. Other than that there is no role for the government to play, it is a matter for commercial choice by both businesses and consumers.
What about where money is put on a prepaid card which then charges all transactions including cash withdrawals as your only means of receiving payment.
One of the agencies employing eastern Europeans insisted on offering that as their only payment method.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I get the Government makes grants, etc. but the idea the Government is paying for universities isn't really accurate. Students pay.
A few of them pay, many many never pay a penny
But that's under the system the Government designed and if they saw no platforming as an issue they should have made it as a condition when they changed the system. They chose not to.
They have a massive majority now, why don't they change it if it's such an issue?
Personally I think the entire issue is completely overblown and I've not met any current/former (recent) university student who actually cared or thought it was an issue. Anecdotal of course.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
Perfectly put. Cancel culture is a terrifically effective political weapon that makes public examples of a few of those with dissenting views by destroying their lives and then cows a much larger number into silence.
Well, until they get to the polling station, anyway. Then their silence is often eloquent...
And I still wonder if there is enough of this in the US to ensure that Trump gets re-elected. Much easier to agree with Trump but stay schtum, when the media consensus is that surely every right-thinking person must despise him?
You'll have this answered on Nov 3rd. My view is that this IS a silent majority election and the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Definitely should not, if you don't like the arguments then you combat them with your own. People are entitled to their opinions as long as they are not breaking the law. Universities are there to educate and broaden people's minds not restrict their views to their own stunted views. Pretending they don't exist is pretty thick.
On 25-26 June with Opinium Starmer led by 2, in their last poll Boris led by 1. So this is a rather strange way of reporting Boris increasing/doubling that lead to 2
“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. The eyeless crature at the other table swallowed it fanatically. passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grams. Syme, too-in some more double complex way, involving doublethink-Syme, swallow it. Was he, then, alone in the possession of a memory?”
Last week Johnson was three points ahead of Starmer - 36 to 33.
I get the Government makes grants, etc. but the idea the Government is paying for universities isn't really accurate. Students pay.
A few of them pay, many many never pay a penny
But that's under the system the Government designed and if they saw no platforming as an issue they should have made it as a condition when they changed the system. They chose not to.
They have a massive majority now, why don't they change it if it's such an issue?
Personally I think the entire issue is completely overblown and I've not met any current/former (recent) university student who actually cared or thought it was an issue. Anecdotal of course.
The government shouldn't insist no platform is bad. Those who believe in free speech and intellectual rigour and debate should. That should include any half decent university.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
It's not really the ruin part I think is the issue, but the new cold war being lost part.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
I'm not sure how far my ancestors in rural West Wales 'profited' much, if at all, from the Triangular Trade.
You may be surprised. There is a great link to where slaveowner compensation was paid, and whom to on here:
It can be searched by name or geography. Several people with my exact forename and surname were compensated. I dont think we were related, but it does give pause for thought.
And anyone should be impressed by this superb graphic, click on individual ships for details:
That’s a dangerous website (although useful). For example my mother’s family is included purely on the basis that her ancestor was helped to get his first job by his (much older) brother-in-law (who was compensated). They received no money from the slave trade nor from the brother-in-law’s estate.
Despite this the media occasionally writes stories along the lines “connected to” or “in the database of” which have the potential to be deeply damaging
Though unlike the USSR where communist Eastern Europe was on the border with the West and had to be held back by NATO, China is on the other side of the world and has shown no sign of expanding territorially beyond Taiwan even with expanded influence in Africa
The South China Sea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia say Hello.
Has China shown any sign of wanting to invade those nations like Taiwan?
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
On the flip side having a new common enemy will unite a lot of people that were previously not so united. For example I can't see why the UK and EU wouldn't be on the same page on China, it's basically the only policy area where the whole US is united, democrats have made very clear that they wouldn't reverse any of Trump's China policies and may go further on freezing Chinese companies out of the US supply chain.
I see China as a competitor rather than an enemy. China is competing on trade, investment and technology.
I feel Putin is more of an enemy. Putin is competing on military interventions and subversion. I see China as a state actor. Putin as a person.
China is a strong competitor on trade, investment and technology. Strong competition is good. And the close integration of the Chinese economy with the rest of the world is a guarantor of peace and of a rules based system. These are in China's interests as well as ours.
But we need to up our game. This is a good incentive for us to cooperate with our allies and partners in competing with China. But we need to distinguish between enemies and competitors. That's true in all walks of life.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
Ok I suppose I won't cancel you then. Reparations could only be symbolic since otherwise the sums would be huge. Symbolic gestures can sometimes be helpful but in this case? No, probably not. Doubt it will be happening in any case.
The Irish Free State pinched 3 houses that would otherwise belong to my uncle. Can we have them back please.
Though unlike the USSR where communist Eastern Europe was on the border with the West and had to be held back by NATO, China is on the other side of the world and has shown no sign of expanding territorially beyond Taiwan even with expanded influence in Africa
That is to underestimate the way in which China is seeking to expand its influence in and over the West in other ways beyond territorial expansion. Its ambitions are imperial and empires, these days, do not need to be created through armies and marching through territories.
Though unlike the USSR where communist Eastern Europe was on the border with the West and had to be held back by NATO, China is on the other side of the world and has shown no sign of expanding territorially beyond Taiwan even with expanded influence in Africa
The last bit is not entirely true. There is a power struggle in the Yellow Sea which also affects teritory rights for Japan and South Korea. Every year we hear of a story where China takes control of an uninhabited island even if it nominally was not Chinese.
Surely the Government should stay well out of universities. If they want to no platform people that's their business. You have the right to call that out but why should the Government be getting involved.
Because the government is paying.
But if the University of Buckingham or Grayling’s thing (new college of the humanities?) want to do that it’s up to them
The students are paying? That's what the student loans are for.
A large proportion never gets paid back & in any event they are basically a graduate tax. Furthermore by the time you include HEFCE grants the government is the dominant player in the sector
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
Waving as every developed nation overtakes us.
[Citation Needed]
The UK grew faster in both absolute and per capita terms than the Eurozone in both the first and second decades of this century. So how are they overtaking us?
What a poor piece by Alastair Meeks. The 'shrillest' voices are those on the reactionary right? Well yeah, no surprise there. Is he also unaware of the dozens of broadly liberal-minded (even left-leaning) academics and commentators who have expressed major concern about all of this? Or does he only have pictures of Sarah Vine, Toby Young and Nigel Farage inside his head. Sorry Alastair but you are out of touch.
Are you seriously suggesting that most of the whining about "cancel culture" does not come from the reactionary right?
Please indicate which of signatories to the letter below and are "reactionary right", in your view -
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
If it’s legal then they should not be banning the speaker or the speech
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
Ok I suppose I won't cancel you then. Reparations could only be symbolic since otherwise the sums would be huge. Symbolic gestures can sometimes be helpful but in this case? No, probably not. Doubt it will be happening in any case.
The Irish Free State pinched 3 houses that would otherwise belong to my uncle. Can we have them back please.
The R number, [Prof Dingwall] said, is inflated by cases in care homes and in hospitals but in the community he believes there are now large swathes of the country with almost no community transmission.
Let's hope he is right, and cases continue to fall into the autumn.
I keep coming back to the point: where is the reservoir of the virus for this second wave coming from? In the SW, for example, Covid is now rare as hen's teeth. We go through the motions - and that helps ensure that it isn't a thing in our lives. But we got it into this country from at least 1,300 sources from holidaymakers and business travellers in France, Italy and Spain. I don't see that being repeated.
As long as we are sensible about people travelling to hot-spots like Florida - and their responsibilties upon their return - then I reckon we should be OK. Just come down hard on anybody taking risks. (I realise my view is in direct contradiction to a friend's son who is involved with the planning around Britannia hospitals - and who thinks the worst of Covid is yet to come this winter. But then he would, wouldn't he!)
What are the Britannia hospitals vs the nightingales?
Hopefully they're nothing like Britannia hotels.
Hopefully not like the nightingales which were useless white elephants and 400M down the drain.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
Actually absolutely I do think a debate is to be had on that. If Labour speakers wish to expose themselves as vile antisemites they should. Show the world their true colours and expose it for what it is.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
I would assume that would be illegal hate speech.
In the case of Starkey‘s comments it was entirely unconnected to his argument (which would have been the same if he’d deleted the word “damn”) but just revealed that he held some fairly unpleasant views.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
Why the bitchy remark about Sarah Vine? That’s beneath you @Cyclefree
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
I would assume that would be illegal hate speech.
In the case of Starkey‘s comments it was entirely unconnected to his argument (which would have been the same if he’d deleted the word “damn”) but just revealed that he held some fairly unpleasant views.
Okay but in my view he was right to lose his job over those views, they're not right or fit in a modern society and they're definitely not suitable for somebody in his position. He deserved to be impacted for what he said. Do you not agree?
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
She should have been fired.
True but she wasn't. And so people conclude there is an agenda here.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
I get the Government makes grants, etc. but the idea the Government is paying for universities isn't really accurate. Students pay.
A few of them pay, many many never pay a penny
But that's under the system the Government designed and if they saw no platforming as an issue they should have made it as a condition when they changed the system. They chose not to.
They have a massive majority now, why don't they change it if it's such an issue?
Personally I think the entire issue is completely overblown and I've not met any current/former (recent) university student who actually cared or thought it was an issue. Anecdotal of course.
The government shouldn't insist no platform is bad. Those who believe in free speech and intellectual rigour and debate should. That should include any half decent university.
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
Of course you are right but Meesk is consumed by one great matter and everything is viewed by him through the same lens.
Ok I suppose I won't cancel you then. Reparations could only be symbolic since otherwise the sums would be huge. Symbolic gestures can sometimes be helpful but in this case? No, probably not. Doubt it will be happening in any case.
The Irish Free State pinched 3 houses that would otherwise belong to my uncle. Can we have them back please.
Only if we Irish first get back the land that was previously pinched from us by your ancestors and all the others who came over.
What a poor piece by Alastair Meeks. The 'shrillest' voices are those on the reactionary right? Well yeah, no surprise there. Is he also unaware of the dozens of broadly liberal-minded (even left-leaning) academics and commentators who have expressed major concern about all of this? Or does he only have pictures of Sarah Vine, Toby Young and Nigel Farage inside his head. Sorry Alastair but you are out of touch.
Are you seriously suggesting that most of the whining about "cancel culture" does not come from the reactionary right?
Ask Julie Bindel or Peter Tatchell about how they have been treated for disagreeing with a new orthodoxy.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
No need to be rude to me, thanks.
If we are to take the idea of debate/against no platforming to its conclusion, you would surely not support the anti-Semites being kicked out of Labour, right? They have a right to speak, they should not be no-platformed.
Yet that is pretty much exactly what kicking them out does.
On the flip side having a new common enemy will unite a lot of people that were previously not so united. For example I can't see why the UK and EU wouldn't be on the same page on China, it's basically the only policy area where the whole US is united, democrats have made very clear that they wouldn't reverse any of Trump's China policies and may go further on freezing Chinese companies out of the US supply chain.
I see China as a competitor rather than an enemy. China is competing on trade, investment and technology.
I feel Putin is more of an enemy. Putin is competing on military interventions and subversion. I see China as a state actor. Putin as a person.
China is a strong competitor on trade, investment and technology. Strong competition is good. And the close integration of the Chinese economy with the rest of the world is a guarantor of peace and of a rules based system. These are in China's interests as well as ours.
But we need to up our game. This is a good incentive for us to cooperate with our allies and partners in competing with China. But we need to distinguish between enemies and competitors. That's true in all walks of life.
China uses methods that are out with the accepted norms. IP theft is a real issue (although they don’t seem it as “theft” as they don’t really understand the concept of IP)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
Ok I suppose I won't cancel you then. Reparations could only be symbolic since otherwise the sums would be huge. Symbolic gestures can sometimes be helpful but in this case? No, probably not. Doubt it will be happening in any case.
The Irish Free State pinched 3 houses that would otherwise belong to my uncle. Can we have them back please.
you have hundreds left, don't be greedy
Not as nice as those ones!
Anyway I only have 2 (although my uncle does have 4)
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
She should have been fired.
True but she wasn't. And so people conclude there is an agenda here.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
We gave Farage a platform for years and we've ended up with Brexit, with people supporting something despite having no idea what the implications are, because his "immigrants are the problem", is a simple solution for many people. Even if it doesn't work.
Farage is on all the bloody time - giving him a platform has not stopped his moronic views from being shown for what they are.
It works sometimes what you said but not in all cases.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
The difference in this case is that the Triangular Trade would not have existed without the supply of slaves provided by African warlords.
This is not to try and gloss over the traders individual culpability, but you shouldn’t ignore the wrong of the other parts of the chain
Interested to know how that reached the BBC website now.
If BLM were addressing all sides of their claimed issue rather than quite such a focus on guilt-tripping, I would be more likely to take them more seriously.
Not your usual kind of story about ancestors who were slave traders
Nigerian journalist and novelist Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani writes that one of her ancestors sold slaves, but argues that he should not be judged by today's standards or values.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
I would assume that would be illegal hate speech.
In the case of Starkey‘s comments it was entirely unconnected to his argument (which would have been the same if he’d deleted the word “damn”) but just revealed that he held some fairly unpleasant views.
Okay but in my view he was right to lose his job over those views, they're not right or fit in a modern society and they're definitely not suitable for somebody in his position. He deserved to be impacted for what he said. Do you not agree?
As long as everybody is treated the same, then yes. The problem with the current arrangements are that we don;'t.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
No to the former and yes to the latter.
Well I disagree but do you support his employer's ability to sack him for those views, or do you think it should be enshrined in law that somebody cannot lose their job for those views?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
Ok I suppose I won't cancel you then. Reparations could only be symbolic since otherwise the sums would be huge. Symbolic gestures can sometimes be helpful but in this case? No, probably not. Doubt it will be happening in any case.
The Irish Free State pinched 3 houses that would otherwise belong to my uncle. Can we have them back please.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
Perfectly put. Cancel culture is a terrifically effective political weapon that makes public examples of a few of those with dissenting views by destroying their lives and then cows a much larger number into silence.
Well, until they get to the polling station, anyway. Then their silence is often eloquent...
And I still wonder if there is enough of this in the US to ensure that Trump gets re-elected. Much easier to agree with Trump but stay schtum, when the media consensus is that surely every right-thinking person must despise him?
You'll have this answered on Nov 3rd. My view is that this IS a silent majority election and the silent majority have had enough of Donald Trump.
You think those who have had enough of Trump are silent?
The R number, [Prof Dingwall] said, is inflated by cases in care homes and in hospitals but in the community he believes there are now large swathes of the country with almost no community transmission.
Let's hope he is right, and cases continue to fall into the autumn.
I keep coming back to the point: where is the reservoir of the virus for this second wave coming from? In the SW, for example, Covid is now rare as hen's teeth. We go through the motions - and that helps ensure that it isn't a thing in our lives. But we got it into this country from at least 1,300 sources from holidaymakers and business travellers in France, Italy and Spain. I don't see that being repeated.
As long as we are sensible about people travelling to hot-spots like Florida - and their responsibilties upon their return - then I reckon we should be OK. Just come down hard on anybody taking risks. (I realise my view is in direct contradiction to a friend's son who is involved with the planning around Britannia hospitals - and who thinks the worst of Covid is yet to come this winter. But then he would, wouldn't he!)
What are the Britannia hospitals vs the nightingales?
Hopefully they're nothing like Britannia hotels.
Hopefully not like the nightingales which were useless white elephants and 400M down the drain.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
Prince Harry's popularity has plummeted according to a new Yougov poll, just 35% now see him as an asset to the nation, compared to 75% eight years ago. 38% now see him as a liability. 51% see Meghan as a liability and just 24% as an asset.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
No need to be rude to me, thanks.
If we are to take the idea of debate/against no platforming to its conclusion, you would surely not support the anti-Semites being kicked out of Labour, right? They have a right to speak, they should not be no-platformed.
Yet that is pretty much exactly what kicking them out does.
And I support that.
I wasn't being rude. If you break the rules you risk expulsion or the sack. Not sure quite what rule Mr. Starkey broke. Are you?
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
Why the bitchy remark about Sarah Vine? That’s beneath you @Cyclefree
First, she is not an eminent political journalist. And second I was surprised to see her opining on beauty since she had, from what I saw of her, little sense of how to make herself look presentable. It’s like having a fat unfit person advising you on personal training.
The main thing that gets me about people like her and other national newspaper columnists is how they manage to get paid anything at all for their writing. Most of it is formulaic and dull.
While I agree with much of what the article says about Western decay, I also think that it reveals a total misunderstanding of the CPC's reality, which is that the only way for it to maintain its grip in China is to ratchet down on the domestic population and to become more assertive abroad. Increasing prosperity means increasing expectations - not only materially but in quality of life terms, too. That is a permanent battle for the CPC. It si no lomger enough to make sure that people do not go hungry. China's actions, like those of Putin in Russia, speak of a fundamental institutional weakness, not a strength.
Totally agree. Yes, the West is weak, but the Chinese Communist Party and Putin are weaker. Dunno if it got much coverage in English media, but there were street protests in the Russian far east yesterday.
I’m a great optimist when it comes to the long-term prospects for Russia and eg Iran, and how the West can work constructively together with them. I’m far less optimistic about China and North Korea and some other dictatorships.
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
Why the bitchy remark about Sarah Vine? That’s beneath you @Cyclefree
First, she is not an eminent political journalist. And second I was surprised to see her opining on beauty since she had, from what I saw of her, little sense of how to make herself look presentable. It’s like having a fat unfit person advising you on personal training.
The main thing that gets me about people like her and other national newspaper columnists is how they manage to get paid anything at all for their writing. Most of it is formulaic and dull.
It's what people like- what they have heard before.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
She should have been fired.
True but she wasn't. And so people conclude there is an agenda here.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
We gave Farage a platform for years and we've ended up with Brexit, with people supporting something despite having no idea what the implications are, because his "immigrants are the problem", is a simple solution for many people. Even if it doesn't work.
Farage is on all the bloody time - giving him a platform has not stopped his moronic views from being shown for what they are.
It works sometimes what you said but not in all cases.
It doesn't work in the ones you personally don't like. Got it.
What a poor piece by Alastair Meeks. The 'shrillest' voices are those on the reactionary right? Well yeah, no surprise there. Is he also unaware of the dozens of broadly liberal-minded (even left-leaning) academics and commentators who have expressed major concern about all of this? Or does he only have pictures of Sarah Vine, Toby Young and Nigel Farage inside his head. Sorry Alastair but you are out of touch.
Are you seriously suggesting that most of the whining about "cancel culture" does not come from the reactionary right?
These suggestions can pretty much added to the rising chorus of whining about "cancel culture" coming from the reactionary right.
'I'll just break off from once again describing vile cancel culture to counter the vile accusations that I and people like me are always going on about cancel culture.'
On the flip side having a new common enemy will unite a lot of people that were previously not so united. For example I can't see why the UK and EU wouldn't be on the same page on China, it's basically the only policy area where the whole US is united, democrats have made very clear that they wouldn't reverse any of Trump's China policies and may go further on freezing Chinese companies out of the US supply chain.
I see China as a competitor rather than an enemy. China is competing on trade, investment and technology.
I feel Putin is more of an enemy. Putin is competing on military interventions and subversion. I see China as a state actor. Putin as a person.
China is a strong competitor on trade, investment and technology. Strong competition is good. And the close integration of the Chinese economy with the rest of the world is a guarantor of peace and of a rules based system. These are in China's interests as well as ours.
But we need to up our game. This is a good incentive for us to cooperate with our allies and partners in competing with China. But we need to distinguish between enemies and competitors. That's true in all walks of life.
China uses methods that are out with the accepted norms. IP theft is a real issue (although they don’t seem it as “theft” as they don’t really understand the concept of IP)
They understand IP very well, It is absolutely central to their plans. Companies like Huawei have built huge patent portfolios, for example, through R&D and through acquisition - and that gives them significant competitive advantage. It is actually far easier to enforce patents in China than it is in the US - as win rates testify. One of the big mistakes we make in the West is to think that the Chinese do not get it. They absolutely do. The issue is that in many instances - particularly with regards to trade secrets - they deliberately choose to flout IP laws or to make working in China contingent on sharing IP.
Yes free speech covers the right to complain about things that offend you. That extends not just to those seeking cancellations but to those complaining about cancellations too. And in Mr Meeks case to those complaining about those complaining about cancellations. And in the case of those attacking Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
And for those who attack those who attack Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
Its simple really isn't it?
It is. Freedom of speech under the law. We have it. To say we don't is an insult to those who really don't. The Toby Youngs of this world are being ineffably precious and entitled. I'd draw a comparison to people - often the same people - making out that mandatory masks in shops during a pandemic is a step along the "slippery slope" to loss of liberty. It's utterly pathetic.
The problem is orchestrated coercion to silence people you disagree with by bombarding their employers with complaints, who then respond to the "reputational damage" by firing or silencing the person. It is not just the the commentariat that is the target.
It is a new weapon, using the power of twitter, in the old battle of ideas. As a new weapon it generates a defensive shield (eg the Free Speech Union) or a mirror shield (eg JKRowling et al using Twitter in defence).
As a liberal and follower of JS Mills, I intensely dislike societal coercion, even though I support community and dislike rugged individualism (I'm not a libertarian). I'm a left wing liberal.
However I'm finding myself liking comments by people on here who I usually disagree with, and growling at comments by eg @kinabalu who has an iron fist carefully concealed in his velvet glove.
We need a "growl" button!
Look, I do acknowledge there is an issue with overzealous reaction to unPC sentiment and the organized use of social media to "e-rough up" the culprits but imo its importance as an issue in the grand scheme of things is wildly exaggerated and in this sense I think "cancel culture" - like "woke" - has become a largely fictitious bogeyman for the right to rail against and provide cover and justification for their fight against the loss of established pecking orders.
And I have always thought you ARE quite libertarian actually. In my PB chest of drawers I have you in my "left leaning libertarian" one. Hoping to keep you there since it is sparely populated compared to most of the others.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752 I wonder how this sort of story will impact the reparations movement, I remember a few weeks ago there was outrage at a Tory councillor commenting about the involvement of Africans in the slave trade. I assumed, like many, he was wrong. Maybe not.
The great majority of slaves taken by Europeans from Africa were sold to them by other Africans. Direct raids in which Europeans snatched people from coastal areas were not particularly common (in contrast with the North African or Barbary slave trade, in which Africans abducted large numbers of Europeans through pirate raids on coastal settlements and ships at sea.)
This is why historians talk about the Triangular Trade when discussing the history of slavery: Europeans (and Americans of European descent) sailed to Africa with ships loaded with trade goods, they bought African slaves from other Africans with the goods, carried the slaves off to work their plantations, and then shipped the goods from the plantations back to their population centres for sale. The value of the plantation goods vastly exceeded the price paid to purchase and feed the slaves, hence the massive profits generated.
People who talk about reparations tend not to mention either the Barbary trade or the sale of African slaves by other Africans. It suits them to simplify history and to portray pre-modern Africans uniformly as defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The African slaves were, of course, defenceless victims of the most appalling violence. The many Africans who profited from taking and selling slaves, not so much.
Just because something is complex does not mean it isn't also simple. There are women who profit from and enable sex trafficking. Does this mean that the assertion "sex trafficking is a criminal industry based on the exploitation of women by men" is wrong or "misleading" or "simplistic"? No it does not. Indeed if someone doggedly maintains this, I would question their motives. Ditto here. So tell me - what are your motives?
Primarily to make a brief reply to a message in which surprise was expressed at the involvement of some Africans in the slave trade, summarising some historical facts. But yes, I'm also deeply sceptical about the reparations movement. All of the people who profited or suffered directly from the Triangular Trade have been dead for a very long time indeed. Therefore, quite where we are meant to begin in assessing who to distribute resources to by way of redress, and especially who to take them from, God alone knows.
There's a world of difference between reappraising history, action against discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity, and redistribution from the wealthy to the poor generally through taxation, and - what? Exacting recompense from countries and their populations for the behaviour of (some of their) ancestors? Race-based levies? I'm really not getting how demanding "reparations" for what happened between the 16th and 19th Centuries is meant to create progress. It is, after all, a term previously applied to vanquished populations being made to pay the price of their own defeat.
I'm not sure how far my ancestors in rural West Wales 'profited' much, if at all, from the Triangular Trade.
You may be surprised. There is a great link to where slaveowner compensation was paid, and whom to on here:
It can be searched by name or geography. Several people with my exact forename and surname were compensated. I dont think we were related, but it does give pause for thought.
And anyone should be impressed by this superb graphic, click on individual ships for details:
That’s a dangerous website (although useful). For example my mother’s family is included purely on the basis that her ancestor was helped to get his first job by his (much older) brother-in-law (who was compensated). They received no money from the slave trade nor from the brother-in-law’s estate.
Despite this the media occasionally writes stories along the lines “connected to” or “in the database of” which have the potential to be deeply damaging
I am not sure what you mean. The first link lists successful claims for compensation for freed slaves. If a name appears there, they were definitely paid as slaveholders.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
I would assume that would be illegal hate speech.
In the case of Starkey‘s comments it was entirely unconnected to his argument (which would have been the same if he’d deleted the word “damn”) but just revealed that he held some fairly unpleasant views.
Okay but in my view he was right to lose his job over those views, they're not right or fit in a modern society and they're definitely not suitable for somebody in his position. He deserved to be impacted for what he said. Do you not agree?
No I don’t.
If he had broken the law or he had developed a racist view of history then there would be a different discussion
As it was you are punishing someone for what they think. *shudders*
An interesting article - but limited in its scope.
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
Of course you are right but Meesk is consumed by one great matter and everything is viewed by him through the same lens.
It is worth considering that in the Good Old Days of the Soviet Union, they defended their behaviour towards dissents thus -
1) There is a right to free speech in the USSR constitution* (there was) 2) People are held responsible for the content of their speech - if they say something anti-social, then they may be unemployable, loose the right to better housing, be dealt with as mentally ill or even imprisoned.
I always find it interesting to see how matter are handled by such regimes.
*As ever, it is not the laws, but the judges that are.... vital.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
She should have been fired.
True but she wasn't. And so people conclude there is an agenda here.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
We gave Farage a platform for years and we've ended up with Brexit, with people supporting something despite having no idea what the implications are, because his "immigrants are the problem", is a simple solution for many people. Even if it doesn't work.
Farage is on all the bloody time - giving him a platform has not stopped his moronic views from being shown for what they are.
It works sometimes what you said but not in all cases.
Griffin advocated things Nigel Farage would not have ever dreamed of supporting,
Paying ethnic minorities to 'repatriate' to other countries being one particularly unpleasant example.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
All that people want is consistency. Starkey made a racist comment, so did another Cambridge professor. He got fired, she got promoted.
She should have been fired.
True but she wasn't. And so people conclude there is an agenda here.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
We gave Farage a platform for years and we've ended up with Brexit, with people supporting something despite having no idea what the implications are, because his "immigrants are the problem", is a simple solution for many people. Even if it doesn't work.
Farage is on all the bloody time - giving him a platform has not stopped his moronic views from being shown for what they are.
It works sometimes what you said but not in all cases.
It doesn't work in the ones you personally don't like. Got it.
I'm sure there are examples on the left as well! I just couldn't think off the top of my head.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
You don't really get this democracy/free speech thing do you. It was the public debate about anti-semitism and subsequent votes of the people that got rid of Corbyn and his acolytes. I'm glad the anti-semites started to shout out their views and so should you - it's given you a leader of relevance.
No need to be rude to me, thanks.
If we are to take the idea of debate/against no platforming to its conclusion, you would surely not support the anti-Semites being kicked out of Labour, right? They have a right to speak, they should not be no-platformed.
Yet that is pretty much exactly what kicking them out does.
And I support that.
The Labour Party is free to say they don't want antisemites as members or MPs.
The antisemites must be free to demonstrate their antisemitism or they will never be exposed in the first place for what they are.
Still today some on this site even now deny Corbyn is an antisemite for instance. Despite all the exposure he's had. Before his views were exposed though it was simply perceived by far more as a right-wing slur rather than accepted as true ... It was him and his followers speaking freely that exposed them for what they are. That showed their true colours.
Prince Harry's popularity has plummeted according to a new Yougov poll, just 35% now see him as an asset to the nation, compared to 75% eight years ago. 38% now see him as a liability. 51% see Meghan as a liability and just 24% as an asset.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
I don't begrudge Harry not wanting to be a part of the circus that is royal life, nor blame Meghan for him feeling that way, but the whole business about not wanting to do it, trying to have his cake and eat it too, it all playing out in the media, was pretty grubby. He doesn't want to be a private citizen (albeit a rich one) as he still wants to be in the limelight just more on his own terms, but he doesn't want the negatives of being a royal either, so I cannot have much sympathy for his position.
The R number, [Prof Dingwall] said, is inflated by cases in care homes and in hospitals but in the community he believes there are now large swathes of the country with almost no community transmission.
Let's hope he is right, and cases continue to fall into the autumn.
I keep coming back to the point: where is the reservoir of the virus for this second wave coming from? In the SW, for example, Covid is now rare as hen's teeth. We go through the motions - and that helps ensure that it isn't a thing in our lives. But we got it into this country from at least 1,300 sources from holidaymakers and business travellers in France, Italy and Spain. I don't see that being repeated.
As long as we are sensible about people travelling to hot-spots like Florida - and their responsibilties upon their return - then I reckon we should be OK. Just come down hard on anybody taking risks. (I realise my view is in direct contradiction to a friend's son who is involved with the planning around Britannia hospitals - and who thinks the worst of Covid is yet to come this winter. But then he would, wouldn't he!)
What are the Britannia hospitals vs the nightingales?
Hopefully they're nothing like Britannia hotels.
Hopefully not like the nightingales which were useless white elephants and 400M down the drain.
They were an insurance policy.
Thank God we didn’t need them.
I believe they are being kept open in case they are needed - yes it may be a complete waste of money but better to be prepared then not...
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. We’ve been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for Scotland for three centuries....yet here we still are, muddling along.
Yes free speech covers the right to complain about things that offend you. That extends not just to those seeking cancellations but to those complaining about cancellations too. And in Mr Meeks case to those complaining about those complaining about cancellations. And in the case of those attacking Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
And for those who attack those who attack Mr Meeks it extends to those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about those complaining about cancellations.
Its simple really isn't it?
It is. Freedom of speech under the law. We have it. To say we don't is an insult to those who really don't. The Toby Youngs of this world are being ineffably precious and entitled. I'd draw a comparison to people - often the same people - making out that mandatory masks in shops during a pandemic is a step along the "slippery slope" to loss of liberty. It's utterly pathetic.
The problem is orchestrated coercion to silence people you disagree with by bombarding their employers with complaints, who then respond to the "reputational damage" by firing or silencing the person. It is not just the the commentariat that is the target.
It is a new weapon, using the power of twitter, in the old battle of ideas. As a new weapon it generates a defensive shield (eg the Free Speech Union) or a mirror shield (eg JKRowling et al using Twitter in defence).
As a liberal and follower of JS Mills, I intensely dislike societal coercion, even though I support community and dislike rugged individualism (I'm not a libertarian). I'm a left wing liberal.
However I'm finding myself liking comments by people on here who I usually disagree with, and growling at comments by eg @kinabalu who has an iron fist carefully concealed in his velvet glove.
It's not even all that carefully concealed...
WYSIWYG.
But seriously, I do think I take a more balanced view on things than you do.
I guess my question would be: if somebody comes along and wants to make a speech which is overtly racist, saying something like Starky said "too many damn blacks", you're saying Universities shouldn't be no-platforming somebody with those views?
Yes.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
I don't think obvious racism can/should be debated, to be honest.
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
I would assume that would be illegal hate speech.
In the case of Starkey‘s comments it was entirely unconnected to his argument (which would have been the same if he’d deleted the word “damn”) but just revealed that he held some fairly unpleasant views.
Okay but in my view he was right to lose his job over those views, they're not right or fit in a modern society and they're definitely not suitable for somebody in his position. He deserved to be impacted for what he said. Do you not agree?
No I don’t.
If he had broken the law or he had developed a racist view of history then there would be a different discussion
As it was you are punishing someone for what they think. *shudders*
Yes his employer made a decision that his racist and objectionable views were not something they wanted to be seeing.
If I as a representative for my firm, said that all blacks deserve to die I'd get sacked and they'd be right to sack me. Doesn't fit in with their company culture or values, or what they want their employees to be like. When I was hired I accepted those values and in this situation I have broken them.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
Waving as every developed nation overtakes us.
[Citation Needed]
The UK grew faster in both absolute and per capita terms than the Eurozone in both the first and second decades of this century. So how are they overtaking us?
You seriously think UK has done better than most developed nations in the last 50 years, provide your citation to prove that fact if you like. It is very well known that UK has been declining since they lost the wealth that was being stolen from the empire.
You can be cancelled these days for something as simple as saying "women do not have penises" on Twitter.
I fully support trans people and their right to transition, but the woke mob cancelling people for turning biology into ideology need to be stopped.
Cancel culture isn't about re-branding PC, it isn't about people with prehistoric views finally getting their comeuppance, either.
It's about deliberately and systematically silencing anyone who dares to contradict a very specific "progressive" ideology. It is dangerous. And it needs to be stopped.
So free speech can only be protected by suppressing free speech? A most ingenious paradox!
The only thing that shouldn't be tolerated is intolerance.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
I think Starkey deserved to lose his job and be shamed for what he said. Do you not?
No to the former and yes to the latter.
Well I disagree but do you support his employer's ability to sack him for those views, or do you think it should be enshrined in law that somebody cannot lose their job for those views?
I personally don't think that is the best approach as it fosters a culture of people being afraid to speak their mind. That is far more dangerous than what was a silly and stupid remark from someone who ought to have known better. Youre obseesed by this sort of thing from the right while cheerfully voted for Corbyn's Labour party a few weeks ago. The hypocrisy is appalling.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJKXJNM3W-c
I'd also recommend Jonathan Haidt's (a lifelong US Liberal such that it matters) heterodox acadamy
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search/
It can be searched by name or geography. Several people with my exact forename and surname were compensated. I dont think we were related, but it does give pause for thought.
And anyone should be impressed by this superb graphic, click on individual ships for details:
https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/database#timelapse
Tories are lying toerags.
But if the University of Buckingham or Grayling’s thing (new college of the humanities?) want to do that it’s up to them
There's a lot of ruin in a nation. I've been hearing of the imminent demise/fall from glory/ignominy for the UK for over half a century....yet here we still are, muddling along.
Yes, Enforced National Unity is a bad thing, whether it's a tyranny of left or right, nationalism or globalism. However, there are different ways of doing the battle of ideas.
One is the sort of thing you got in (say) the 50s and 60s. Two parties, with clearly distinct worldviews, but significant consensus and seeking expand through the middle ground, and that being where the action was. And since both parties were seeking to expand into the same space, there was a battle there.
The other is the sort of thing that happened / is happening in many parts of the West in recent years. Parties being more concerned about their extreme flanks, whether that's the Momentum wing of Labour or the Brexit Party vs. the Conservatives. Elsewhere, that's led to Vox and Podemos in Spain, or Trumpism in the USA. It's not the same sort of battle. It's mostly two bunkers lobbing missiles at each other. In that dynamic, you win by indulging your side but being marginally less awful than your opponent. Macron - le Pen. Trump - Clinton. Johnson - Corbyn.
(The second part of the definition “making them unemployable” is arguably more important)
One of the agencies employing eastern Europeans insisted on offering that as their only payment method.
They should put a counter speaker up explaining why the first speaker is in the wrong. It's called having a debate.
They have a massive majority now, why don't they change it if it's such an issue?
Personally I think the entire issue is completely overblown and I've not met any current/former (recent) university student who actually cared or thought it was an issue. Anecdotal of course.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46591500
I don't think you'd be arguing there's a debate to be had if a Labour representative stood up and said "Jews are causing all the problems in the world and they're destroying the Labour Party with their made up anti-Semitism accusations".
(Just so it's entirely clear, I don't agree with any of that quote BTW - but it's something that has been said by some nutters in Labour and there has been no attempt to my knowledge, to try and defend their right to speak.)
One set of “received opinions” is in the process of being replaced by another set. Both groups feel that anyone not subscribing to the new orthodoxy is beyond the pale and should not be allowed in some way to have a hearing. That applies just as much to those on the “woke progressive” side as it does to the Adam Boultons and Sarah Vines of this world.
(And, btw, when did she become an “eminent political journalist”? She mainly wrote about beauty products - and boy does she need them.)
There is always a rage to impose a conformity on what people should think and say and to use whatever means are available to prevent people from expressing different views to whatever is the fashionable or widely held view of the time. This comes from all parts of the political and cultural spectrum. That is the problem not the petulant reaction of some journalists to criticism.
I hesitate to criticise @AlistairM as he writes very fine headers but I would have liked him to address this issue.
https://twitter.com/kevina364/status/1282061893662838785
Despite this the media occasionally writes stories along the lines “connected to” or “in the database of” which have the potential to be deeply damaging
I feel Putin is more of an enemy. Putin is competing on military interventions and subversion. I see China as a state actor. Putin as a person.
China is a strong competitor on trade, investment and technology. Strong competition is good. And the close integration of the Chinese economy with the rest of the world is a guarantor of peace and of a rules based system. These are in China's interests as well as ours.
But we need to up our game. This is a good incentive for us to cooperate with our allies and partners in competing with China. But we need to distinguish between enemies and competitors. That's true in all walks of life.
The UK grew faster in both absolute and per capita terms than the Eurozone in both the first and second decades of this century. So how are they overtaking us?
https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
That's how you win the battle for ideas.
Trying to get people fired, deplatformed, their incomes destroyed, etc, for having dissenting views needs to be challenged.
That is what I meant by seeing cancel culture as "dangerous and needs to be stopped". It is one thing to vocally disagree with someone. It is quite another to attempt to destroy their life and banish them from the sphere of debate.
In the case of Starkey‘s comments it was entirely unconnected to his argument (which would have been the same if he’d deleted the word “damn”) but just revealed that he held some fairly unpleasant views.
I go back to the Nick Griffin question time example. The BNP had a clutch of councillors before he was given the oxygen of publicity.
He went on question time, was allowed to say what he wanted, and the BNP barely won a seat thereafter. The BNP collapsed. Why? because people saw Griffin for what he was.
This makes me think we should allow all speech. Anjem Choudhray, David Duke, Shemima Begum, Tommy Robinson, David Icke, whatever. Banning stuff gives it a fascination.
The more we hear from these people, the less traction they have, actually. But then allowing them a platform means trusting that ordinary people are actually pretty decent and won't be swayed.
Only if we Irish first get back the land that was previously pinched from us by your ancestors and all the others who came over. Ask Julie Bindel or Peter Tatchell about how they have been treated for disagreeing with a new orthodoxy.
If we are to take the idea of debate/against no platforming to its conclusion, you would surely not support the anti-Semites being kicked out of Labour, right? They have a right to speak, they should not be no-platformed.
Yet that is pretty much exactly what kicking them out does.
And I support that.
Anyway I only have 2 (although my uncle does have 4)
Farage is on all the bloody time - giving him a platform has not stopped his moronic views from being shown for what they are.
It works sometimes what you said but not in all cases.
The story was already told at length in the New Yorker by the same author in 2018, as previously posted here:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/my-great-grandfather-the-nigerian-slave-trader
If BLM were addressing all sides of their claimed issue rather than quite such a focus on guilt-tripping, I would be more likely to take them more seriously.
Nigerian journalist and novelist Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani writes that one of her ancestors sold slaves, but argues that he should not be judged by today's standards or values.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53444752
https://www.everettpotter.com/2013/03/the-best-of-the-west-coast-of-ireland/
It's a view....
Thank God we didn’t need them.
Amongst the royal family 81% see the Queen as an asset still, followed by 79% seeing Prince William as an asset and 76% seeing the Duchess of Cambridge as an asset.
54% see Prince Charles as an asset but only 4% see Prince Andrew as an asset now, 80% see him as a liability
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12163783/prince-harrys-popularity-plummets-and-many-brits-see-him-as-liability-for-monarchy/
The main thing that gets me about people like her and other national newspaper columnists is how they manage to get paid anything at all for their writing. Most of it is formulaic and dull.
I’m a great optimist when it comes to the long-term prospects for Russia and eg Iran, and how the West can work constructively together with them. I’m far less optimistic about China and North Korea and some other dictatorships.
'I'll just break off from once again describing vile cancel culture to counter the vile accusations that I and people like me are always going on about cancel culture.'
Look, I do acknowledge there is an issue with overzealous reaction to unPC sentiment and the organized use of social media to "e-rough up" the culprits but imo its importance as an issue in the grand scheme of things is wildly exaggerated and in this sense I think "cancel culture" - like "woke" - has become a largely fictitious bogeyman for the right to rail against and provide cover and justification for their fight against the loss of established pecking orders.
And I have always thought you ARE quite libertarian actually. In my PB chest of drawers I have you in my "left leaning libertarian" one. Hoping to keep you there since it is sparely populated compared to most of the others.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1073357036283420672?s=20
If he had broken the law or he had developed a racist view of history then there would be a different discussion
As it was you are punishing someone for what they think. *shudders*
1) There is a right to free speech in the USSR constitution* (there was)
2) People are held responsible for the content of their speech - if they say something anti-social, then they may be unemployable, loose the right to better housing, be dealt with as mentally ill or even imprisoned.
I always find it interesting to see how matter are handled by such regimes.
*As ever, it is not the laws, but the judges that are.... vital.
Paying ethnic minorities to 'repatriate' to other countries being one particularly unpleasant example.
The antisemites must be free to demonstrate their antisemitism or they will never be exposed in the first place for what they are.
Still today some on this site even now deny Corbyn is an antisemite for instance. Despite all the exposure he's had. Before his views were exposed though it was simply perceived by far more as a right-wing slur rather than accepted as true ... It was him and his followers speaking freely that exposed them for what they are. That showed their true colours.
Hopefully he will be happier now.
But seriously, I do think I take a more balanced view on things than you do.
If I as a representative for my firm, said that all blacks deserve to die I'd get sacked and they'd be right to sack me. Doesn't fit in with their company culture or values, or what they want their employees to be like. When I was hired I accepted those values and in this situation I have broken them.
It is very well known that UK has been declining since they lost the wealth that was being stolen from the empire.