As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Gallowgate is the same about trans issues. He tells us the only people that care about the subject are transphobic cranks. He then repeats this same statement in various evermore boring forms, about 390 times, in an evening, showing that, if nothing else he, Gallowgate, really REALLY cares
Yes, he spends inordinate amounts of time and energy telling us about why no one should ever care about these issues and how they don't matter at all ... without ever seeing the obvious discrepancy between his claims and his behaviour. An odd kind of aggressive apathy, if you will.
I'm just educating you about the real world outside the Oxford Students Union debating society.
And yet Boris, a former President of the Oxford Union (the debating society), won a larger share of the vote than any PM had for 40 years, so that hardly seems a fatal impediment to understanding the real world.
I am a little confused here, was not what was being proposed not a case of "You have to book people even if you don't like their politics" but more "If someone is booked to speak then it shouldn't be cancelled because a left or right mob object, nor should the mob be allowed to shout it down if it goes ahead and people who wish to attend and listen should be allowed to" ? I admit I really haven't followed what is proposed but that is the take I got from an article on the subject
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
It is interesting to see that the Tory Party has dug a great big bear pit for the Labour Party with the creation of the new post of the Woke-finder General in Universities.
I expect some Labour MPs will helpfully fall straight into the bear pit.
My guess is that the Tories have no great interest in the University seats, almost all of which they don't hold (with the exception of NPxMP's Broxtowe).
They do have a great deal of interest in provoking a Great Woke-Hunt.
It's a handy "look squirrel" device promoted by those in Cabinet who have most to gain from the use of diversionary tactics, namely Williamson, Jenrick and Ms Patel.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
Although I dislike Warsi now as she has gone down her own extreme rabbit hole, all parties put up an A List against the fool and they demolished him in open debate.
Support for the BNP cratered after that. Free speech works.
Exactly. Inviting him on national TV was the start of his demise. Debate and freedom of speech
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I'm not bothered about whether you care about it, I'm bothered about whether the Government should be ramping the culture war by focusing on this meaningless bollocks instead of actually tackling issues that matter.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
Although I dislike Warsi now as she has gone down her own extreme rabbit hole, all parties put up an A List against the fool and they demolished him in open debate.
Support for the BNP cratered after that. Free speech works.
Exactly. Inviting him on national TV was the start of his demise. Debate and freedom of speech
The fact you conflate freedom of speech on national TV with a talk attended by maybe 200 students out of 40,000 in a dingy hall in a student union is telling.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Laughable
That we should have gone so far down the rabbit hole, that freedom of speech needs to be explicitly protected in law. Yes, it’s laughable.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Laughable
That we should have gone so far down the rabbit hole, that freedom of speech needs to be explicitly protected in law. Yes, it’s laughable.
Do you think teachers should be banned by law from telling off kids for insulting each other in the playground?
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Protest should be allowed outside the hall by all means, I don't think protest is valid inside anymore than protestors should have been able to for example disrupt a showing of the life of brian
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
On the culture war thing, I think this is very much a transfer from the US (where this is very much a problem), which the Tories are -depending on your viewpoint - either trying to stop from turning from a fringe issue into a serious problem in the UK, or cynically realising this is the sort of thing Labour activists will hate and actively oppose, but will be very popular with swing voters.
Either way, I would agree that, as of right now, there is very little evidence to suggest that no-platforming of moderate viewpoints is currently a problem, although the seeds are certainly there: cf the attempts to have the likes of Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell silenced.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
There’s protest and protest.
Protesting outside a hall is fine, protesting loudly and violently inside the hall, as has happened at some universities, and attempting to stop an event, isn’t.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I'm not bothered about whether you care about it, I'm bothered about whether the Government should be ramping the culture war by focusing on this meaningless bollocks instead of actually tackling issues that matter.
Well, the government with a landslide majority led by the aforementioned former President of the Union thinks we should, so ultimately we don't have to care what you think about it.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
Students are also not caged animals (although maybe they are at the moment). They are not children and are not prevented from going to venues to hear people speak. Is this purely about who speaks at the "student union"? I.e. that building with the bar and the nightclub in it?
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Laughable
That we should have gone so far down the rabbit hole, that freedom of speech needs to be explicitly protected in law. Yes, it’s laughable.
Do you think teachers should be banned by law from telling off kids for insulting each other in the playground?
If not, you're clearly against freedom of speech.
Pupils in a school have far fewer rights than an adult does. Freedom of speech? Not in my classroom thank you very much...
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
There’s protest and protest.
Protesting outside a hall is fine, protesting loudly and violently inside the hall, as has happened at some universities, and attempting to stop an event, isn’t.
That's fair enough. One shouldn't be forced to have someone in one's hall who is disrupting proceedings. But out there, on them steps, wave those placards all you like.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
True, but there is an overlap. Sometimes protest can be so aggressive and dangerous they do shut down debates, and thus, stifle free speech
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
Students are also not caged animals (although maybe they are at the moment). They are not children and are not prevented from going to venues to hear people speak. Is this purely about who speaks at the "student union"? I.e. that building with the bar and the nightclub in it?
It's niche as can possibly be.
No point going to listen though if the hall gets invaded by protestors ensuring that the speaker can't be heard by those that did want to listen. That happens too often and those students who do it most definitely should be caged
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
True, but there is an overlap. Sometimes protest can be so aggressive and dangerous they do shut down debates, and thus, stifle free speech
If you are aggressive and attack someone, that's assault. Likewise, if you bar someone's way.
But waving placards, and screaming about evil Tory baby killers, that's all part of free speech.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
The obsession with who speaks at universities seems to be an obsession purely of bitter right-wingers who went to Russell Group universities.
The vast majority of students will never attend any of these "talks". They will never even be aware that such "talks" are taking place. They literally do not care. Nobody cares.
It's the most middle-class obsession ever.
Most people don't care about most things, doesn't mean they cannot be important.
Now I have some sympathy with the view that right wingers in particular make a lot out of such things, as part of general culture war stuff so beloved on certain people on left and right, but the idea that because so few are actually interested in such things means the issues that might be raised around this issue by restricting free speech - or indeed people incorrectly suggesting there has been restriction of free speech for political purposes - strikes me as a paritcularly weak way of dismissing the concerns, and indeed outright problematic.
It's the sort of approach politicians would like to foster, as most problems that might cause complaints are not things most people know about or care about, so why should anyone look at them or ask about them?
On balance, it seems better to care about these issues too much than too little. That's not to say this particular measure is necessary or appropriate, but the dismissal of the issue on the grounds you gave is troubling.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
I agree with everything you have said there Pagan, but I don't see how they need any particular protection. The vast majority of speakers aren't banned. If they are they have the power of overturning the ban if they are in the majority and if not they can see the speaker elsewhere. I'm sure Wes Streeting wouldn't have been completely turned off politics and given up because one speaker he wanted to see was banned.
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
So are you saying that if only a minority are having their rights discriminated against; if only a minority are being refused pretty fundamental human rights; that only a minority care, then Parliament has no role getting involved protecting the freedoms of minorities?
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
This is, in essence, a familiar tactic of something at the extremities or most strident end of the left being used to tar all of it, of transatlantic origin. In the early 1990s, the term "politically correct" came into use on campuses to describe an excessively ideological approach to excluding European authors from literature courses, on the grounds of cultural hegemony and domination. Before long it was being used to tar all and every form of liberal cause. Woke and Cancel Culture are currently going through a similarly dangerous process, with Cancel Culture now used by Trump's defence team in the impeachment proceedings, on the grounds of his riot being something reasonable that opponents are simply trying to "'cancel'.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
I agree with everything you have said there Pagan, but I don't see how they need any particular protection. The vast majority of speakers aren't banned. If they are they have the power of overturning the ban if they are in the majority and if not they can see the speaker elsewhere. I'm sure Wes Streeting wouldn't have been completely turned off politics and given up because one speaker he wanted to see was banned.
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
I think you misunderstood my point let me phrase it another way
A lot less than 1% of the country goto eton
People often raise the issue too many mp's went to eton
1% of students are involved in student politics
Far more than 1% of mp's were involved in student politics
Was the point I was making. If it is right to be concerned how many mp's went to Eton and people advocate doing something about it then it is also right that being concerned about student politics because it has a larger impact than 1% suggests
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
Although I dislike Warsi now as she has gone down her own extreme rabbit hole, all parties put up an A List against the fool and they demolished him in open debate.
Support for the BNP cratered after that. Free speech works.
Exactly. Inviting him on national TV was the start of his demise. Debate and freedom of speech
The fact you conflate freedom of speech on national TV with a talk attended by maybe 200 students out of 40,000 in a dingy hall in a student union is telling.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
But it is an issue and resolving it with a law that targets universities and prevents them from cancelling bookings is the only surefire way to ensure that this stupid no platforming stops.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."
For example - Julie Bindel. Who invited her to speak at Manchester University's student union? What even is the procedure in deciding who gets to speak? Was she "banned" or did the Union committee simply decide not to host her?
I don't agree with banning her but it's not like her human rights are being constrained. There are plenty of venues in Manchester that she could speak at instead.
Does the Student Union even have anything to do with the University? For example Newcastle University Students Union is a completely independent organisation. The building isn't even owned by the University.
I would be much more sympathetic with the "this is a human rights issue" argument if the same people were arguing that ALL VENUES should be forced to accept any booking.
I would be much more sympathetic with the "this is a human rights issue" argument if the same people were arguing that ALL VENUES should be forced to accept any booking.
But no. It's only universities.
We should tbf, the level debate in this country is terrible.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
But it is an issue and resolving it with a law that targets universities and prevents them from cancelling bookings is the only surefire way to ensure that this stupid no platforming stops.
No it isn't. You'll just get the same no platformers picketing the venues etc.
Like I said just now, I'd be much more sympathetic to this view if you were arguing that all venues should be required by law to accept all bookings. But curiously it seems to be only universities you're bothered about? EDIT: I see you've already addressed this. Fair enough.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
Although I dislike Warsi now as she has gone down her own extreme rabbit hole, all parties put up an A List against the fool and they demolished him in open debate.
Support for the BNP cratered after that. Free speech works.
Exactly. Inviting him on national TV was the start of his demise. Debate and freedom of speech
The fact you conflate freedom of speech on national TV with a talk attended by maybe 200 students out of 40,000 in a dingy hall in a student union is telling.
One matters. The other doesn't.
ALL free speech matters, and I don't understand why you don't see this. What happens at Universities, almost exclusively to do with student societies (but not totally) helps to create the world we live in. If politically active students (as you say, the vast majority) inhabit a world where no-platforming etc are common practice, they grow up into politicians who think the same. There is a strong link of student activism and latter politicians. Wes Streeting is just one example (head of the NUS? Now an MP). Free speech has limits, and here is not the place to explore the boundaries of this. But to ignore situations where free speech is suppressed is the thin end of the wedge. The current heat seams now to be focused on trans rights. What's next?
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
So are you saying that if only a minority are having their rights discriminated against; if only a minority are being refused pretty fundamental human rights; that only a minority care, then Parliament has no role getting involved protecting the freedoms of minorities?
People don't have an automatic right to speak at an event (I'm sure nobody wants to hear me for instance). The majority decides. In a decent system the majority takes into account of the minority view and should allow it. If not it becomes a one sided boring debate.
But why can't they sort this out for themselves? it is their decision. Why is it high on Williamsons to do list? Those impacted have alternatives.
I also find it interesting your defence of minorities yet you defend to the hilt an electoral system that deprives the majority.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
I agree with everything you have said there Pagan, but I don't see how they need any particular protection. The vast majority of speakers aren't banned. If they are they have the power of overturning the ban if they are in the majority and if not they can see the speaker elsewhere. I'm sure Wes Streeting wouldn't have been completely turned off politics and given up because one speaker he wanted to see was banned.
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
I think you misunderstood my point let me phrase it another way
A lot less than 1% of the country goto eton
People often raise the issue too many mp's went to eton
1% of students are involved in student politics
Far more than 1% of mp's were involved in student politics
Was the point I was making. If it is right to be concerned how many mp's went to Eton and people advocate doing something about it then it is also right that being concerned about student politics because it has a larger impact than 1% suggests
The problem is also this: what starts off as a tiny, eccentric debate in academia eventually spreads into wider society, as the students who discuss this stuff tend to be politically active in later life, seeding the ideas everywhere.
Critical Race Theory, White Privilege, White Fragility, Innate White Racism, Decolonoising the Curriculum, and so on, were minuscule fringe debates in a few social studies departments in the USA about 30 years ago. Now they are absolutely mainstream, for good or bad. I personally believe much (but not all) of this is bad and horribly divisive (look at America).
So what may only concern 1% of students now may affect 100% of us in 20 years.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."
Notably, Peter Tactchell, who has been no platformed, doesn't seem a fan of the latest proposals.
Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist, said the plan for a free speech tsar was part of a "cynical culture war" to use "hot-button culture issues" to secure political advantage.
Mr Tatchell, who has himself been the target of no-platform protests, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that said such issues were "quite rare" and needed to be put in perspective
I'm lukewarm, as I think groups and organisations can fold a bit too quickly to some noisy pressure and even though that is mostly trivial I think you have to treat that seriously lest it become a bigger problem, but on the other hand the government sticking its blundering boots into it, probably with a view to stoking the fires rather than putting it out, may not be helpful.
Whether it is a good or bad idea, and whether it is a widespread problem or limited, however, it is not meaningless just because few people are directly affected.
I would be much more sympathetic with the "this is a human rights issue" argument if the same people were arguing that ALL VENUES should be forced to accept any booking.
But no. It's only universities.
No one has clarified yet. I from what I have seen get the impression that what they are saying is if you get booked that booking can't be cancelled by "the mob" nor the speaking disrupted by "the mob", not that they are forced to book anyone. I don't see why you find that controversial
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
Precisely. The likes of Toby Young should be challenged by those who know what they're talking about, not No Platformed.
There's no such thing as No Platform, everyone finds a platform even Choudary, Griffin and Young.
At a University they can and should be challenged and if they can't be challenged in free debate then that shows the weakness of the established train of thought. However as shown in the QT clip before sometimes the established train of thought is so for a good reason and in free debate it can crush the abhorrent ideas.
Important though the COVID graphs are, I reckon the ones Rishi Sunak is watching are the ones showing upward pressure on long government bond yields globally.
Running gargantuan deficits in the face of rising borrowing costs could get very ugly very quickly.
"Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet.
Hardly anyone does, in the same way that hardly any uni students go and see him in person."
*Hardly anyone* is an interesting definition of "millions of people"
Here's one of Peterson's lectures on Bible history (not an obviously sexy subject)
It has had...... 7.8 MILLION views.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
He is an extremely popular academic. One of the most high profile in the world. Your remarks are laughably stupid.
I thought that was a strange thing to say - he demonstrably has a very large audience
"12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is a 2018 self-help book by Canadian clinical psychologist and psychology professor Jordan Peterson. It provides life advice through essays in abstract ethical principles, psychology, mythology, religion, and personal anecdotes.
The book topped bestseller lists in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and has sold over five million copies worldwide"
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."
For example - Julie Bindel. Who invited her to speak at Manchester University's student union? What even is the procedure in deciding who gets to speak? Was she "banned" or did the Union committee simply decide not to host her?
I don't agree with banning her but it's not like her human rights are being constrained. There are plenty of venues in Manchester that she could speak at instead.
Does the Student Union even have anything to do with the University? For example Newcastle University Students Union is a completely independent organisation. The building isn't even owned by the University.
FFS do your own reading. I've given you three articles.
No wonder the universities are falling apart if this is your level of inquiry. You have to be spoon fed.
I'm surprised the response wasn't (about the Meghans) 'Who gives a toss?' 100%.
I'd have put don't know simply as I think inappropriate and appropriate would be the wrong terminology for it. I have no issue with Harry or Meghan - being a fan of Suits I'm inclined to like her in fact - but the last couple of years it really does seem like the main issue is simply that they want attention for being in the Royal Family whilst also being free to moan about it, and rather than being appropriate or inappopriate that is just plain dull.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
I agree with everything you have said there Pagan, but I don't see how they need any particular protection. The vast majority of speakers aren't banned. If they are they have the power of overturning the ban if they are in the majority and if not they can see the speaker elsewhere. I'm sure Wes Streeting wouldn't have been completely turned off politics and given up because one speaker he wanted to see was banned.
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
I think you misunderstood my point let me phrase it another way
A lot less than 1% of the country goto eton
People often raise the issue too many mp's went to eton
1% of students are involved in student politics
Far more than 1% of mp's were involved in student politics
Was the point I was making. If it is right to be concerned how many mp's went to Eton and people advocate doing something about it then it is also right that being concerned about student politics because it has a larger impact than 1% suggests
The problem is also this: what starts off as a tiny, eccentric debate in academia eventually spreads into wider society, as the students who discuss this stuff tend to be politically active in later life, seeding the ideas everywhere.
Critical Race Theory, White Privilege, White Fragility, Innate White Racism, Decolonoising the Curriculum, and so on, were minuscule fringe debates in a few social studies departments in the USA about 30 years ago. Now they are absolutely mainstream, for good or bad. I personally believe much (but not all) of this is bad and horribly divisive (look at America).
So what may only concern 1% of students now may affect 100% of us in 20 years.
I would be much more sympathetic with the "this is a human rights issue" argument if the same people were arguing that ALL VENUES should be forced to accept any booking.
But no. It's only universities.
No one has clarified yet. I from what I have seen get the impression that what they are saying is if you get booked that booking can't be cancelled by "the mob" nor the speaking disrupted by "the mob", not that they are forced to book anyone. I don't see why you find that controversial
So a Jewish owned hotel accepts a booking to host a talk from someone random. They later find out that the booking is to be used by someone who openly advocates Nazi ideas. Are you saying that by law they should be required to keep the booking?
If not, why should universities be treated differently?
Student Unions are supposed to be accountable to students. If students are unhappy, they are supposed to vote them out.
The fact they aren't is because students don't give a shit about their unions other than for cheap booze and sport.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."
For example - Julie Bindel. Who invited her to speak at Manchester University's student union? What even is the procedure in deciding who gets to speak? Was she "banned" or did the Union committee simply decide not to host her?
I don't agree with banning her but it's not like her human rights are being constrained. There are plenty of venues in Manchester that she could speak at instead.
Does the Student Union even have anything to do with the University? For example Newcastle University Students Union is a completely independent organisation. The building isn't even owned by the University.
FFS do your own reading. I've given you three articles.
No wonder the universities are falling apart if this is your level of inquiry. You have to be spoon fed.
Maybe the Universities Minister should focus on quality of education then rather than this nonsense.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.
It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some legitimate concerns about efforts to de-platform. The government is exaggerating these hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.
On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
I would be much more sympathetic with the "this is a human rights issue" argument if the same people were arguing that ALL VENUES should be forced to accept any booking.
But no. It's only universities.
No one has clarified yet. I from what I have seen get the impression that what they are saying is if you get booked that booking can't be cancelled by "the mob" nor the speaking disrupted by "the mob", not that they are forced to book anyone. I don't see why you find that controversial
So a Jewish owned hotel accepts a booking to host a talk from someone random. They later find out that the booking is to be used by someone who openly advocates Nazi ideas. Are you saying that by law they should be required to keep the booking?
If not, why should universities be treated differently?
Student Unions are supposed to be accountable to students. If students are unhappy, they are supposed to vote them out.
The fact they aren't is because students don't give a shit about their unions other than for cheap booze and sport.
Oh give me a fucking break.... if a university society invites a speaker they already know where that speaker is coming from. Its not a random booking of a concert hall ffs.
I would be much more sympathetic with the "this is a human rights issue" argument if the same people were arguing that ALL VENUES should be forced to accept any booking.
But no. It's only universities.
No one has clarified yet. I from what I have seen get the impression that what they are saying is if you get booked that booking can't be cancelled by "the mob" nor the speaking disrupted by "the mob", not that they are forced to book anyone. I don't see why you find that controversial
So a Jewish owned hotel accepts a booking to host a talk from someone random. They later find out that the booking is to be used by someone who openly advocates Nazi ideas. Are you saying that by law they should be required to keep the booking?
If not, why should universities be treated differently?
Student Unions are supposed to be accountable to students. If students are unhappy, they are supposed to vote them out.
The fact they aren't is because students don't give a shit about their unions other than for cheap booze and sport.
Because universities are supposed to be bastions of free and challenging thought.
Yes that even extends to Nazis or Islamophiles or anyone else unless it's breaking the law.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
Precisely. The likes of Toby Young should be challenged by those who know what they're talking about, not No Platformed.
There's no such thing as No Platform, everyone finds a platform even Choudary, Griffin and Young.
At a University they can and should be challenged and if they can't be challenged in free debate then that shows the weakness of the established train of thought. However as shown in the QT clip before sometimes the established train of thought is so for a good reason and in free debate it can crush the abhorrent ideas.
Free speech works. No platform doesn't.
Free speech is vital to a free society.
Well I agree with everything you said there Philip. In fact it was very well said. But is there really an issue other than the occasional left or right wing clique in a Union being pillocks (which from memory was pretty often)
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
Although I dislike Warsi now as she has gone down her own extreme rabbit hole, all parties put up an A List against the fool and they demolished him in open debate.
Support for the BNP cratered after that. Free speech works.
The hysteria around that event was downright embarrassing. The implication of a lot of comments made by some of those angry at his attendance was that millions of people were simply waiting to fall under Griffin's dangerously charismatic spell if they heard his words.
If that were a real danger I think we'd have had far bigger problems than him appearing on QT.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
I agree with everything you have said there Pagan, but I don't see how they need any particular protection. The vast majority of speakers aren't banned. If they are they have the power of overturning the ban if they are in the majority and if not they can see the speaker elsewhere. I'm sure Wes Streeting wouldn't have been completely turned off politics and given up because one speaker he wanted to see was banned.
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
I think you misunderstood my point let me phrase it another way
A lot less than 1% of the country goto eton
People often raise the issue too many mp's went to eton
1% of students are involved in student politics
Far more than 1% of mp's were involved in student politics
Was the point I was making. If it is right to be concerned how many mp's went to Eton and people advocate doing something about it then it is also right that being concerned about student politics because it has a larger impact than 1% suggests
The problem is also this: what starts off as a tiny, eccentric debate in academia eventually spreads into wider society, as the students who discuss this stuff tend to be politically active in later life, seeding the ideas everywhere.
Critical Race Theory, White Privilege, White Fragility, Innate White Racism, Decolonoising the Curriculum, and so on, were minuscule fringe debates in a few social studies departments in the USA about 30 years ago. Now they are absolutely mainstream, for good or bad. I personally believe much (but not all) of this is bad and horribly divisive (look at America).
So what may only concern 1% of students now may affect 100% of us in 20 years.
There are certainly issues with uncritically incorporating ideas like White Fragility, and even the wider White Privilege, as I've argued more than a few times than on these boards. The problem, as in the early 1990s with Political Correctness, is that the American Right, with the British Right following on closely behind, has just found it too politically and ideologically expedient to keep on widening the scope of the attack, which then becomes a convenient vehicle for the Right to hide all kinds of more unsavoury aspects of its own more radical thinkers behind, as a fig leaf.
There's a reasonable debate to be had on a real issue, more often in fact on social media rather on campuses, of excessive censoriousness, but the current transparent and cheap politicking about a "war on woke", which core supporters will come to view as a dog-whistle like political correctness, rather than a nuanced and good faith examination of the ideas, simply ain't the way to have it.
If speakers are able to sue for compensation if they are removed from speaking, won't the result be that no one will be booked in the first place? Thus leading to less debate. And isn't the right to protest about a speaker actually a fundamental part of freedom of speech?
I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.
It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.
On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.
If they aren't given a platform how do you challenge their ideas? This is how these ideas are allowed to fester and take hold. All of these bullshit fake news peddlers need to be challenged in public forums as often as possible.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.
I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.
It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.
On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.
Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.
Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.
However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.
If speakers are able to sue for compensation if they are removed from speaking, won't the result be that no one will be booked in the first place? Thus leading to less debate. And isn't the right to protest about a speaker actually a fundamental part of freedom of speech?
Yeah Student Unions will probably just have a system where no bookings can be made without approval, or something.
"Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet.
Hardly anyone does, in the same way that hardly any uni students go and see him in person."
*Hardly anyone* is an interesting definition of "millions of people"
Here's one of Peterson's lectures on Bible history (not an obviously sexy subject)
It has had...... 7.8 MILLION views.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
He is an extremely popular academic. One of the most high profile in the world. Your remarks are laughably stupid.
I thought that was a strange thing to say - he demonstrably has a very large audience
"12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is a 2018 self-help book by Canadian clinical psychologist and psychology professor Jordan Peterson. It provides life advice through essays in abstract ethical principles, psychology, mythology, religion, and personal anecdotes.
The book topped bestseller lists in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and has sold over five million copies worldwide"
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
I agree with everything you have said there Pagan, but I don't see how they need any particular protection. The vast majority of speakers aren't banned. If they are they have the power of overturning the ban if they are in the majority and if not they can see the speaker elsewhere. I'm sure Wes Streeting wouldn't have been completely turned off politics and given up because one speaker he wanted to see was banned.
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
I think you misunderstood my point let me phrase it another way
A lot less than 1% of the country goto eton
People often raise the issue too many mp's went to eton
1% of students are involved in student politics
Far more than 1% of mp's were involved in student politics
Was the point I was making. If it is right to be concerned how many mp's went to Eton and people advocate doing something about it then it is also right that being concerned about student politics because it has a larger impact than 1% suggests
The problem is also this: what starts off as a tiny, eccentric debate in academia eventually spreads into wider society, as the students who discuss this stuff tend to be politically active in later life, seeding the ideas everywhere.
Critical Race Theory, White Privilege, White Fragility, Innate White Racism, Decolonoising the Curriculum, and so on, were minuscule fringe debates in a few social studies departments in the USA about 30 years ago. Now they are absolutely mainstream, for good or bad. I personally believe much (but not all) of this is bad and horribly divisive (look at America).
So what may only concern 1% of students now may affect 100% of us in 20 years.
Was that not the point I was making?
Yes, indeed, I just felt it needed fleshing out with some relevant examples
I take it that we've all seen the news about shielding by now - in particular, the reports that all the letters to the new additions to the list are going to tell them to sit at home until March 31st?
If ever proof were required that the whole country is going to be kept under lock and key for a long time, it's that. If it's claimed to be too dangerous for the vulnerable even to leave the house then the prospect of anything whatever re-opening apart from schools is precisely zero.
I think what we've got coming in the big reveal next Monday is, broadly speaking, primaries from March 8th, an aspiration to let secondaries back after the Easter holidays, and the woolliest language possible on everything else.
I reckon that, having been caught out not acting decisively enough earlier in the pandemic, the Government is now terrified of the potential consequences of letting us out of jail and will therefore move as slowly as it possibly can.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
I agree with everything you have said there Pagan, but I don't see how they need any particular protection. The vast majority of speakers aren't banned. If they are they have the power of overturning the ban if they are in the majority and if not they can see the speaker elsewhere. I'm sure Wes Streeting wouldn't have been completely turned off politics and given up because one speaker he wanted to see was banned.
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
I think you misunderstood my point let me phrase it another way
A lot less than 1% of the country goto eton
People often raise the issue too many mp's went to eton
1% of students are involved in student politics
Far more than 1% of mp's were involved in student politics
Was the point I was making. If it is right to be concerned how many mp's went to Eton and people advocate doing something about it then it is also right that being concerned about student politics because it has a larger impact than 1% suggests
The problem is also this: what starts off as a tiny, eccentric debate in academia eventually spreads into wider society, as the students who discuss this stuff tend to be politically active in later life, seeding the ideas everywhere.
Critical Race Theory, White Privilege, White Fragility, Innate White Racism, Decolonoising the Curriculum, and so on, were minuscule fringe debates in a few social studies departments in the USA about 30 years ago. Now they are absolutely mainstream, for good or bad. I personally believe much (but not all) of this is bad and horribly divisive (look at America).
So what may only concern 1% of students now may affect 100% of us in 20 years.
Indeed, even Eton and our major public schools are going woke nowadays to fit into the new liberal elite, it is not just our universities
If speakers are able to sue for compensation if they are removed from speaking, won't the result be that no one will be booked in the first place? Thus leading to less debate. And isn't the right to protest about a speaker actually a fundamental part of freedom of speech?
I haven't seen anyone argue you don't have the right to protest outside the hall, merely your right to protest doesn't give you permission to enter the hall and make sure they can't be heard over your shouting
Scotland bumping along at 0.9, and from looking at the most recent days, still moving closer to 1.0.
Sturgeon today: "Even a slight easing of restrictions could cause cases to start rising rapidly again." Indeed.
Sturgeon also today: "We are choosing to use the very limited headroom we have right now to get at least some children back to school."
At least case numbers are low enough that there should be enough time to react if numbers do start going the wrong way. I suppose that's partly what she's referring to with the limited headroom.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Perhaps you could list some issues that you care about, so that we could spend hours of our time telling you that they're meaningless and no one cares about them?
I think the critical issue here is that this is rather niche. The Education Secretary has a plateful of issues currently and yet he is concentrating on the issue of people who may be blacklisted from debates (although nobody has come up with one yet) that practically nobody goes to. This should be item number 145 on his agenda, although I appreciate for the very few who do go to these debates, who may or may not be allowed to see someone, it may be important and should be thrashed out in another debate in Union.
If that was all it was I might agree, a lot too many people however go straight from student politics into mainstream politics, That 1% that people keep claiming don't matter often ends up as a larger proportion of people who becomes mp's. Wes Streeting being an example. I am curious about if anyone has any figures on how many of our mps were in the 1% interested in student politics
I agree with everything you have said there Pagan, but I don't see how they need any particular protection. The vast majority of speakers aren't banned. If they are they have the power of overturning the ban if they are in the majority and if not they can see the speaker elsewhere. I'm sure Wes Streeting wouldn't have been completely turned off politics and given up because one speaker he wanted to see was banned.
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
I think you misunderstood my point let me phrase it another way
A lot less than 1% of the country goto eton
People often raise the issue too many mp's went to eton
1% of students are involved in student politics
Far more than 1% of mp's were involved in student politics
Was the point I was making. If it is right to be concerned how many mp's went to Eton and people advocate doing something about it then it is also right that being concerned about student politics because it has a larger impact than 1% suggests
That is an interesting point Pagan and well made. I think the difference is that in the Eton scenario it is binary. You either go or don't. In the student politics scenario it isn't. For most students they won't come across a ban in the vast majority of debates. If they do they can actually debate that very issue of the ban as an issue itself. And can see that speaker anyway elsewhere. You never know it might improve their debating skills. Although I agree there should no no no-platforming.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."
For example - Julie Bindel. Who invited her to speak at Manchester University's student union? What even is the procedure in deciding who gets to speak? Was she "banned" or did the Union committee simply decide not to host her?
I don't agree with banning her but it's not like her human rights are being constrained. There are plenty of venues in Manchester that she could speak at instead.
Does the Student Union even have anything to do with the University? For example Newcastle University Students Union is a completely independent organisation. The building isn't even owned by the University.
FFS do your own reading. I've given you three articles.
No wonder the universities are falling apart if this is your level of inquiry. You have to be spoon fed.
Maybe the Universities Minister should focus on quality of education then rather than this nonsense.
If you can't see how they're all part of the whole ethos of University, there is no hope....
If speakers are able to sue for compensation if they are removed from speaking, won't the result be that no one will be booked in the first place? Thus leading to less debate. And isn't the right to protest about a speaker actually a fundamental part of freedom of speech?
Yeah Student Unions will probably just have a system where no bookings can be made without approval, or something.
Yes. A committee will be set up to vet anyone with any opinion outwith the mainstream. And doubtless on luxuriant expenses. And err on the side of caution. Red tape, perks for their mates, and lack of scrutiny. It's what the Conservative Party is all about now.
Scotland bumping along at 0.9, and from looking at the most recent days, still moving closer to 1.0.
Sturgeon today: "Even a slight easing of restrictions could cause cases to start rising rapidly again." Indeed.
Sturgeon also today: "We are choosing to use the very limited headroom we have right now to get at least some children back to school."
At least case numbers are low enough that there should be enough time to react if numbers do start going the wrong way. I suppose that's partly what she's referring to with the limited headroom.
Almost any relaxation, anywhere, will bring R above 1.
Once R is above 1.. well, we've seen how little time there is before things get interesting.
Which is why there is a push to get the vaccinations done.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.
As far as I understand it if it's related to the job (eg the Tory Party realises it's got Labour voters as employees) then it's unlikely to be unfair but for generic non political jobs a tribunal is unlikely to view it as a fair dismissal. If a non political business owner said at a General Election he'd fire anyone who doesn't vote Tory you really don't think the law would object to that?
Crucially the law does say that for firings due to political views the two year window where you can't sue does not apply.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
I have an serious issue with both this "culture war" and trans issues.
Mainly I haven't got a clue what the actual issue is because it's not that people are barred from speaking (the only person I've seen pull that trick is the Home Secretary barring people who have been invited) it's more they are complaining that they haven't been invited (because no one wants to listen to them).
People have definitely been blocked from speaking in the Trans-Terf wars - Terfs blocked by "Trans activists", that is.
"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."
For example - Julie Bindel. Who invited her to speak at Manchester University's student union? What even is the procedure in deciding who gets to speak? Was she "banned" or did the Union committee simply decide not to host her?
I don't agree with banning her but it's not like her human rights are being constrained. There are plenty of venues in Manchester that she could speak at instead.
Does the Student Union even have anything to do with the University? For example Newcastle University Students Union is a completely independent organisation. The building isn't even owned by the University.
FFS do your own reading. I've given you three articles.
No wonder the universities are falling apart if this is your level of inquiry. You have to be spoon fed.
Maybe the Universities Minister should focus on quality of education then rather than this nonsense.
If you can't see how they're all part of the whole ethos of University, there is no hope....
Some of you seem to have a very romanticised view of universities.
The fact is that 99% of students are not going to affected by any of this. This isn't an exaggeration.
There are 40,000 students in Newcastle. How many do you think get involved in Student Union debates? How many do you think attend talks at the Students Unions?
The answer is devastatingly small.
It's not going to improve the "quality of debate" as these debates are not well attended. It's not going to improve the "quality of education" because most students are not touched by this whatsoever.
Universities are not small groups of students eagerly discussing the issues of the day in a dignified manner. Students are much more likely to discuss who they shagged the night before than any of this nonsense.
The Oxford Union Debating Society and the Bristol Labour Society =/= Universities.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.
If I recall my Union rep training properly it would probably be unfair dismissal on the basis of discrimination, and you’d get a payout. But unless they were stupid they’d make you fight to prove that was the reason, and your chances of success would depend on how long you'd worked there etc.
I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.
It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.
On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.
Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.
Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.
However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.
Modern Tory voter = populist = big state/authoritarian. It is why people like me stopped being members of the Conservative Party. It is how moderate Labour supporters must have felt when Corbyn took over.
One of the problems I have with no platforming is it occurs even when the subject of the talk is not anything to do with why they are no platforming. An example might for example be JK Rowling being invited to speak by a writers group then the trans lobby decides she can't speak even though the subject she is going to talk about is the pitfalls to becoming a published author
Scotland bumping along at 0.9, and from looking at the most recent days, still moving closer to 1.0.
Sturgeon today: "Even a slight easing of restrictions could cause cases to start rising rapidly again." Indeed.
Sturgeon also today: "We are choosing to use the very limited headroom we have right now to get at least some children back to school."
At least case numbers are low enough that there should be enough time to react if numbers do start going the wrong way. I suppose that's partly what she's referring to with the limited headroom.
Some governments (EG Florida, France) have made the decision they are going to educate their children whatever happens with covid. They have decided education is too valuable to continue to be sacrificed, with treatments and vaccines becoming more and more available.
Florida's governor even claimed that, whilst their children are in school full time, their infection rates in children are nothing special.
Whatever its illness rates, a country that fails to educate its children is surely lost.
I take it that we've all seen the news about shielding by now - in particular, the reports that all the letters to the new additions to the list are going to tell them to sit at home until March 31st?
If ever proof were required that the whole country is going to be kept under lock and key for a long time, it's that. If it's claimed to be too dangerous for the vulnerable even to leave the house then the prospect of anything whatever re-opening apart from schools is precisely zero.
I think what we've got coming in the big reveal next Monday is, broadly speaking, primaries from March 8th, an aspiration to let secondaries back after the Easter holidays, and the woolliest language possible on everything else.
I reckon that, having been caught out not acting decisively enough earlier in the pandemic, the Government is now terrified of the potential consequences of letting us out of jail and will therefore move as slowly as it possibly can.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/01/bristol-university-students-seek-ban-terf-speakers-question/
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
One matters. The other doesn't.
If not, you're clearly against freedom of speech.
Either way, I would agree that, as of right now, there is very little evidence to suggest that no-platforming of moderate viewpoints is currently a problem, although the seeds are certainly there: cf the attempts to have the likes of Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell silenced.
Protesting outside a hall is fine, protesting loudly and violently inside the hall, as has happened at some universities, and attempting to stop an event, isn’t.
Am I doing this right?
It's niche as can possibly be.
All of them...
But waving placards, and screaming about evil Tory baby killers, that's all part of free speech.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
Now I have some sympathy with the view that right wingers in particular make a lot out of such things, as part of general culture war stuff so beloved on certain people on left and right, but the idea that because so few are actually interested in such things means the issues that might be raised around this issue by restricting free speech - or indeed people incorrectly suggesting there has been restriction of free speech for political purposes - strikes me as a paritcularly weak way of dismissing the concerns, and indeed outright problematic.
It's the sort of approach politicians would like to foster, as most problems that might cause complaints are not things most people know about or care about, so why should anyone look at them or ask about them?
On balance, it seems better to care about these issues too much than too little. That's not to say this particular measure is necessary or appropriate, but the dismissal of the issue on the grounds you gave is troubling.
From case data
From hospitalisations
This happens often enough to be a concern. Another example:
"An Oxford University professor whose invitation to a conference celebrating women was withdrawn has defended her stance on transgender rights issues.
Selina Todd was "no-platformed" by the Oxford International Women's Festival, at which she had been due to speak"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51737206
And another:
"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36101423
This is like the Culture Secretary raising as an important issue a controversy on Morris Dancer's bells. Most of us don't care and those that do can sort it out amongst themselves.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
A lot less than 1% of the country goto eton
People often raise the issue too many mp's went to eton
1% of students are involved in student politics
Far more than 1% of mp's were involved in student politics
Was the point I was making. If it is right to be concerned how many mp's went to Eton and people advocate doing something about it then it is also right that being concerned about student politics because it has a larger impact than 1% suggests
For example - Julie Bindel. Who invited her to speak at Manchester University's student union? What even is the procedure in deciding who gets to speak? Was she "banned" or did the Union committee simply decide not to host her?
I don't agree with banning her but it's not like her human rights are being constrained. There are plenty of venues in Manchester that she could speak at instead.
Does the Student Union even have anything to do with the University? For example Newcastle University Students Union is a completely independent organisation. The building isn't even owned by the University.
But no. It's only universities.
Like I said just now, I'd be much more sympathetic to this view if you were arguing that all venues should be required by law to accept all bookings. But curiously it seems to be only universities you're bothered about? EDIT: I see you've already addressed this. Fair enough.
Free speech has limits, and here is not the place to explore the boundaries of this. But to ignore situations where free speech is suppressed is the thin end of the wedge.
The current heat seams now to be focused on trans rights. What's next?
But why can't they sort this out for themselves? it is their decision.
Why is it high on Williamsons to do list?
Those impacted have alternatives.
I also find it interesting your defence of minorities yet you defend to the hilt an electoral system that deprives the majority.
Critical Race Theory, White Privilege, White Fragility, Innate White Racism, Decolonoising the Curriculum, and so on, were minuscule fringe debates in a few social studies departments in the USA about 30 years ago. Now they are absolutely mainstream, for good or bad. I personally believe much (but not all) of this is bad and horribly divisive (look at America).
So what may only concern 1% of students now may affect 100% of us in 20 years.
Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist, said the plan for a free speech tsar was part of a "cynical culture war" to use "hot-button culture issues" to secure political advantage.
Mr Tatchell, who has himself been the target of no-platform protests, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that said such issues were "quite rare" and needed to be put in perspective
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979
I'm lukewarm, as I think groups and organisations can fold a bit too quickly to some noisy pressure and even though that is mostly trivial I think you have to treat that seriously lest it become a bigger problem, but on the other hand the government sticking its blundering boots into it, probably with a view to stoking the fires rather than putting it out, may not be helpful.
Whether it is a good or bad idea, and whether it is a widespread problem or limited, however, it is not meaningless just because few people are directly affected.
There's no such thing as No Platform, everyone finds a platform even Choudary, Griffin and Young.
At a University they can and should be challenged and if they can't be challenged in free debate then that shows the weakness of the established train of thought. However as shown in the QT clip before sometimes the established train of thought is so for a good reason and in free debate it can crush the abhorrent ideas.
Free speech works. No platform doesn't.
Free speech is vital to a free society.
Running gargantuan deficits in the face of rising borrowing costs could get very ugly very quickly.
So about 1 percent.
I wouldn't question whether he is a significant public intellectual, who might be interesting to people who are interested in that sort of thing.
The point is that most people aren't
No wonder the universities are falling apart if this is your level of inquiry. You have to be spoon fed.
If not, why should universities be treated differently?
Student Unions are supposed to be accountable to students. If students are unhappy, they are supposed to vote them out.
The fact they aren't is because students don't give a shit about their unions other than for cheap booze and sport.
It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some legitimate concerns about efforts to de-platform. The government is exaggerating these hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.
On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Yes that even extends to Nazis or Islamophiles or anyone else unless it's breaking the law.
If that were a real danger I think we'd have had far bigger problems than him appearing on QT.
There's a reasonable debate to be had on a real issue, more often in fact on social media rather on campuses, of excessive censoriousness, but the current transparent and cheap politicking about a "war on woke", which core supporters will come to view as a dog-whistle like political correctness, rather than a nuanced and good faith examination of the ideas, simply ain't the way to have it.
Thus leading to less debate.
And isn't the right to protest about a speaker actually a fundamental part of freedom of speech?
Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.
However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.
https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?=frlh
OK, try this one:
Here he's being interviewed by Helen Lewis about Patriarchy
24 MILLION views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s&t=640s
Jordan Peterson is also in the top ten "most watched lectures" of any kind, on YouTube, which is THE place to reach a global audience, these days
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lectures&sp=CAM%3D
I mean, go ahead, knock yourself out, claim that is "hardly anybody". It is simply ridiculous
I take it that we've all seen the news about shielding by now - in particular, the reports that all the letters to the new additions to the list are going to tell them to sit at home until March 31st?
If ever proof were required that the whole country is going to be kept under lock and key for a long time, it's that. If it's claimed to be too dangerous for the vulnerable even to leave the house then the prospect of anything whatever re-opening apart from schools is precisely zero.
I think what we've got coming in the big reveal next Monday is, broadly speaking, primaries from March 8th, an aspiration to let secondaries back after the Easter holidays, and the woolliest language possible on everything else.
I reckon that, having been caught out not acting decisively enough earlier in the pandemic, the Government is now terrified of the potential consequences of letting us out of jail and will therefore move as slowly as it possibly can.
https://unherd.com/2020/12/what-do-etonians-have-to-feel-guilty-about/
Sturgeon today: "Even a slight easing of restrictions could cause cases to start rising rapidly again." Indeed.
Sturgeon also today: "We are choosing to use the very limited headroom we have right now to get at least some children back to school."
At least case numbers are low enough that there should be enough time to react if numbers do start going the wrong way. I suppose that's partly what she's referring to with the limited headroom.
Red tape, perks for their mates, and lack of scrutiny. It's what the Conservative Party is all about now.
Once R is above 1.. well, we've seen how little time there is before things get interesting.
Which is why there is a push to get the vaccinations done.
Crucially the law does say that for firings due to political views the two year window where you can't sue does not apply.
The fact is that 99% of students are not going to affected by any of this. This isn't an exaggeration.
There are 40,000 students in Newcastle. How many do you think get involved in Student Union debates? How many do you think attend talks at the Students Unions?
The answer is devastatingly small.
It's not going to improve the "quality of debate" as these debates are not well attended. It's not going to improve the "quality of education" because most students are not touched by this whatsoever.
Universities are not small groups of students eagerly discussing the issues of the day in a dignified manner. Students are much more likely to discuss who they shagged the night before than any of this nonsense.
The Oxford Union Debating Society and the Bristol Labour Society =/= Universities.
Florida's governor even claimed that, whilst their children are in school full time, their infection rates in children are nothing special.
Whatever its illness rates, a country that fails to educate its children is surely lost.
If someone is vulnerable and going to be vaccinated in short order, then it makes sense to take some precautions, in the short term
The new additions to the vulnerable list are nearly all in other categories - so it is just shuffling the order of vaccination a bit.