The trans-rights loon really are the most bizarre group. That wouldn't matter if they weren't so damned unpleasant: hurling abuse at anyone who dares make completely uncontroversial statements.
Ah our brooding Rochester to womankind's fluffy Jane. Preacher to the Unwoke with all the tricks of the trade. I get the appeal - for primitive types seeking validation - but he's a dud. He has presence, and he's fluent, but one never hears him say a thing of depth or originality. It's just non-stop banalities delivered in that ostentatiously tortured "I bleed logic" manner of his. I sense he is not a stable person. He always seems on the edge either of pulling a knife or of tears. And the vanity. Oh my word, it's stifling. Totally and utterly up himself. So, no, I wish him well, but he's not for me.
Agreed - the Right needs a convincing cultural traditionalist voice, and western debate can always use one as a counterpart to an expanding democratic tendency in general ; and he's not it.
Yes. I am quite partial to a powerful Conservative thinker. I don't consider that an oxymoron.
Freedom of speech of course protects all directions, whether you agree or disagree with any particular train of thought.
If you believe in free speech for "TERFs" then you should also believe in free speech for those preaching about "toxic masculinity".
You're only a defender of free speech if you back the speech you disagree with as well as that you agree with.
I don't believe Corbynistas should be allowed a public platform, when the plan is to spew their anti-Semitism bile. If they want to bang on about how great life in Soviet Russia was, that is fine. What's wrong with that?
I think Corbynistas should be allowed a public platform for the same reason Nick Griffin was. If they want to spew antisemitic bile then let them do so, call it out for what it is and combat it openly and publicly through public debate.
Push the debate underground and their bile goes unchallenged.
Are you saying then, that we should sweep away all of the UK's hate speech laws?
Yes.
Incitement to violence should be a crime. "Hate" should not. If someone is spewing hatred then expose and challenge them, don't drive it underground.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
The trans-rights loon really are the most bizarre group. That wouldn't matter if they weren't so damned unpleasant: hurling abuse at anyone who dares make completely uncontroversial statements.
The loons should be called out for the loons that they are, but not diminish the problems for genuine trans people that they probably mostly do not represent.
My problem is that a lot of this stuff really does just look like bollocks to me, and I'm worried about missing some actually useful stuff I could do with reflecting on about my own attitudes because I've been put off by the prominence of the parts that look like bollocks. I like to think I don't just dismiss ideas out of hand merely because they are not within my wheelhouse, but I have an instinctive reaction to some of this stuff.
Handy to know some people of colour fall into categories of white identity.
I think we need to be careful in applying these principles, and those like it, to the UK. America has a long and complicated relationship with race and what applies and/or works there is not necessarily appropriate here in the UK.
"Defund the Police" is one such concept.
I think there is a general danger in trying to take a principle that can apply universally - society should not be racist - and trying to apply universal solutions, when everywhere will be a little bit different in its challenges and extent. That one and others seemed a bit too much attempting to tap into a brand to make a global moment, which meant inevitable counterreaction had more bite.
I agree. I've had many debates with my more Corbynista-inclined friends about this.
I think it's easy to be suckered into virtue signalling, especially when certain aspects of our society are so heavily culturally influenced by the US.
People on here who mainly spend their online time on PB and reading the Telegraph may not understand the cultural implications of spending all your time on TikTok, Instagram, and websites like Reddit instead.
Suddenly the US cultural (read: coastal Dem) "world view" becomes your own.
It cuts through even more than watching American movies and TV shows.
My problem is that a lot of this stuff really does just look like bollocks to me, and I'm worried about missing some actually useful stuff I could do with reflecting on about my own attitudes because I've been put off by the prominence of the parts that look like bollocks. I like to think I don't just dismiss ideas out of hand merely because they are not within my wheelhouse, but I have an instinctive reaction to some of this stuff.
Handy to know some people of colour fall into categories of white identity.
I think we need to be careful in applying these principles, and those like it, to the UK. America has a long and complicated relationship with race and what applies and/or works there is not necessarily appropriate here in the UK.
"Defund the Police" is one such concept.
Such slogans get retweeted with anger, approval and bemusement all round due to their controversy - thus increasing the virility of the message and the "debate" around it. That's why they do it.
No-one would give a shit about "spend a bit less on the police force, and a bit more on community development initiatives".
The trouble is the side-effects of this is massive political polarisation and division.
Sometimes it's better to stick with the boring and less sexy messages and build support (slowly) from the bottom up through gentle influence. The trouble is that doesn't massage the ego.
Yes, to some degree. We know AZ has a really good t-cell response the SA variant. It should have the effect of turning even a variant infection into something like a cold. I'd be surprised if J&J doesn't also have that.
The issue is that J&J aren't slated to start manufacturing until April/May at the earliest and they haven't made any regulatory submissions yet. Novavax are also in that position. We've bet on that for young people and it has 90% efficacy.
The J&J trials covered the SA variant, and the vaccine performed well (although not quite as well as against the non-SA viruses). In fact, there's better evidence for the J&J one than the AZ one for the SA variant.
The trans-rights loon really are the most bizarre group. That wouldn't matter if they weren't so damned unpleasant: hurling abuse at anyone who dares make completely uncontroversial statements.
The loons should be called out for the loons that they are, but not diminish the problems for genuine trans people that they probably mostly do not represent.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Though to be fair you could call what he was given sanctuary, I can't think of a better term for it.
For over a decade he was given armed Police protection, moved around in bullet proof cars - the state spent about £1m per annum protecting him. If that's not sanctuary then what would you call 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?
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
I care about putting the fires out in the culture war. You however are very keen to fan them.
If you want to put out the fires then you should support free speech. Let everyone speak for themselves and there's no culture war, just debate.
Except simultaneously to the free speech campaign at universities the same government has decided to censor debate on the history of heritage organisations. We are only free to say what the government wants...
It will be quite amusing when student Islamic societies inviting hate preachers are being protected by government decree.
There is a difference between no-platforming speakers who are violently anti-Semitic and believe gays should be executed, and no-platforming feminists who believe that men cannot simply declare themselves to be women and have access to women only toilets/changing rooms.
You're not a stupid man. You can see the difference. Free speech does not include the freedom to incite violence.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
Why would anyone no-platform Toby Young, I mean he’s an odious little twerp with some weird and unpopular views on lockdown, but hardly an extremist AFAIK?
And his bullshit needs to be challenged in the open so people realise what a tit he is so they ignore him in future.
It was of course very openly challenged at the recent Cambridge Union efficacy of lockdown debate, a debate he, Brady and Tice nevertheless won.
Errr ... you do realise the audience at the Cambridge Union is almost entirely made up of wankers looking to grease a smooth ride into our political parties.
The voting audience will have consisted of the most eccentric fops & fools amongst the Cambridge undergraduates.
Of course, there are plenty of hard-working & normal undergraduates at Cambridge, but they won't be in the Cambridge Union.
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.
Most of your case seems to rest upon the assertion that Newcastle is overrun by the most intellectually-incurious, apathetic halfwits on the planet, so no one else should aspire to anything better. Quite apart from this being a peculiarly self-abasing argument for one of its graduates to make, it's also depressingly antithetical to any serious idea of a university, let alone the one formulated by Newman.
I use Newcastle (as a city) as an example because I've attended both universities in Newcastle.
However your unsurprising snobbery is noted.
The snobbery is yours alone - you're the one who's been telling us ad nauseam that 99% of Newcastle students want literally nothing more from their time there than alcohol, sex, and a 2:1. I don't believe that's true of them at all - instead it's just you projecting your extraordinarily banausic view of education onto others.
I'm simplifying of course but you paint a picture of men in white robes ardently discussing the issues of the day well into the night over some single malt.
This is not the reality of higher education, no matter how hard you want it to be.
Do you have any experience of higher education outside Oxford and/or Cambridge?
Not in the sense of having been a member, but I've had plenty of contact with other higher education institutions and their products both here and abroad. I'm perplexed as to why you're adopting a stance that will lead to the same ends as those of the narrowest kind of elitist, i.e. restricting the full richness of higher education to a very small clique of elite institutions and letting the rest get by on the mediocrity of low expectations. Open, unencumbered discussion - robes or not, port or not, grand buildings or not - of anything and everything under the sun is the lifeblood of a university, or it's not really a university at all. All Plato needed was that and a grove of olives - et voilà!
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.
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.
The point I was trying to make is that all the new shielders are being told to hunker down until the end of March, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not. This isn't a measure exclusive to unvaccinated persons. Therefore, by extension, (a) one would expect all shielders to be asked to do the same (I would imagine that we'll get a presser from Hancock tomorrow in which this will be announced,) and (b) so long as it's deemed too dangerous to let shielders out then the prospect of any significant easing for the rest of the population is nil.
The schools are evidently going to be treated as a special case but God alone knows when anything else will be allowed. The more I think about it, the further into the future any possible unlocking seems to regress. If the Government and its advisers are that frightened of what happens if people are let out then that, coupled with the fact that R is estimated to be not a million miles below 1, means that we'll be waiting at least until the back end of May for anything else to open up at all (i.e. three weeks after the last of the fiftysomethings has been lanced for the first time.) It's quite possible that the poor old hospitality sector will be made to wait until three weeks after the last eighteen-year-old has had theirs, which could quite easily end up being September.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not CRG-level impatient and I know that the Olympic Gold-medal standard tedium is bound to drag on well into Spring, but sat here in mid-February with everything that's already happened, and perhaps not much if anything to look forward to this year, it does make it feel like this is never going to end - and I don't entirely blame people who fret about the moving of goalposts. It's all too easy to see how the excuses for keeping everyone under house arrest could jump from "need to protect the over 50s" to "need to protect everyone" to "the over 50s now need their boosters" to "it's Winter, Covid+Flu = hospital panic," and before we all know it it'll be another miserable, shitty Zoom Christmas, with several more months of masks and staying at home on the other side of that.
All this might be enough to stop some more people dying, but when exactly are we to be permitted to start living again?
Yes indeed. This is no life at the moment. It is a dim kind of quasi-existence, like the Aztec afterlife, where you just grope around amongst formless shadows for a few years, before you are actually extinguished.
It always struck me as being a particularly unpleasant offering, as afterlifes go, but then Aztec religion in general was pretty grim. Who wants to pierce his penis every morning with cactus thorns, apart from Gallowgate?
(It was much better, Aztec-wise, if you died heroically in battle, then you were reincarnated as a Monarch butterfly)
I never expected to be living in the Aztec otherworld here in north London.
HOWEVER, I reckon human nature will prevail. I know lots of young people who are just ignoring the rules. Quietly having parties in student digs, getting on with living and loving (as they must)
As for older folk, once they are vaxxed by April they will just think Fuck it, I'm going out, I'm going to the sea, I'm going to my also-vaxxed friends' house for dinner.
The government won't be able to fine 20 million people and the police will give up.
It is going to happen before April...
Haven't even seen a policeman around since January. Much more pleasant than the menacing videos we saw of people being far too heavy handed.
The government has to know that this is lockdown by consent. We don’t have the police to do otherwise. If behavioural psychology is not factored into lockdown I’d be very surprised.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Though to be fair you could call what he was given sanctuary, I can't think of a better term for it.
For over a decade he was given armed Police protection, moved around in bullet proof cars - the state spent about £1m per annum protecting him. If that's not sanctuary then what would you call it?
He was given the protection that all UK citizens should expect as of right when their lives are publicly and credibly threatened.
Ah our brooding Rochester to womankind's fluffy Jane. Preacher to the Unwoke with all the tricks of the trade. I get the appeal - for primitive types seeking validation - but he's a dud. He has presence, and he's fluent, but one never hears him say a thing of depth or originality. It's just non-stop banalities delivered in that ostentatiously tortured "I bleed logic" manner of his. I sense he is not a stable person. He always seems on the edge either of pulling a knife or of tears. And the vanity. Oh my word, it's stifling. Totally and utterly up himself. So, no, I wish him well, but not for me.
I can only assume from that you have not read anything he has written.
One might almost suggest that in conversations and interviews he is tailoring his comments to the intellectual level of the person doing the questioning.
It's my sincere opinion based on modest but not insignificant exposure. I find him charismatic but banal. Like Creflo Dollar is.
Freedom of speech of course protects all directions, whether you agree or disagree with any particular train of thought.
If you believe in free speech for "TERFs" then you should also believe in free speech for those preaching about "toxic masculinity".
You're only a defender of free speech if you back the speech you disagree with as well as that you agree with.
I don't believe Corbynistas should be allowed a public platform, when the plan is to spew their anti-Semitism bile. If they want to bang on about how great life in Soviet Russia was, that is fine. What's wrong with that?
I think Corbynistas should be allowed a public platform for the same reason Nick Griffin was. If they want to spew antisemitic bile then let them do so, call it out for what it is and combat it openly and publicly through public debate.
Push the debate underground and their bile goes unchallenged.
It is all about context. Free speech, harmless nonsense, or incitement? Corbyn demanding we all live in Muscovite-style public sector tower blocks is a quaint throwback to the cold war and generally harmless. Corbyn's goons being vile about Luciana Berger is wholly different, it may just fall inside the rules of legality, but it shouldn't. Likewise I don't want to hear Abu Hamza either, and that does cross the line to illegality.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
My problem is that a lot of this stuff really does just look like bollocks to me, and I'm worried about missing some actually useful stuff I could do with reflecting on about my own attitudes because I've been put off by the prominence of the parts that look like bollocks. I like to think I don't just dismiss ideas out of hand merely because they are not within my wheelhouse, but I have an instinctive reaction to some of this stuff.
Handy to know some people of colour fall into categories of white identity.
I think we need to be careful in applying these principles, and those like it, to the UK. America has a long and complicated relationship with race and what applies and/or works there is not necessarily appropriate here in the UK.
"Defund the Police" is one such concept.
Theresa May tried that one. Didn't work out too well for her.
Why would anyone no-platform Toby Young, I mean he’s an odious little twerp with some weird and unpopular views on lockdown, but hardly an extremist AFAIK?
And his bullshit needs to be challenged in the open so people realise what a tit he is so they ignore him in future.
It was of course very openly challenged at the recent Cambridge Union efficacy of lockdown debate, a debate he, Brady and Tice nevertheless won.
Errr ... you do realise the audience at the Cambridge Union is almost entirely made up of wankers looking to grease a smooth ride into our political parties.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
To be fair, Mr Rushdie is a multi-state citizen. And was protected by the UK government. Despite some arguing that he shouldn't be. Quite a few on the Left, IIRC
The trans-rights loon really are the most bizarre group. That wouldn't matter if they weren't so damned unpleasant: hurling abuse at anyone who dares make completely uncontroversial statements.
The loons should be called out for the loons that they are, but not diminish the problems for genuine trans people that they probably mostly do not represent.
FGM is "literal violence".
But under the new rules presumably the free speech czars will be protecting the trans rights extremists too.
That's the problem with protecting free speech, it includes things that you may not like.
The reality is that these new rules will protect "woke radicals" too. Indeed it stops them from being "no platformed".
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
The trans-rights loon really are the most bizarre group. That wouldn't matter if they weren't so damned unpleasant: hurling abuse at anyone who dares make completely uncontroversial statements.
The loons should be called out for the loons that they are, but not diminish the problems for genuine trans people that they probably mostly do not represent.
FGM is "literal violence".
Well, quite. And the victims are female.
Indeed.
I don't understand trans loons on this subject because someone who is genuinely trans tends to be someone who thinks they should be male but born in a female body, or female but born in a male body.
These loons seem to wish to deny the existance of females or males in the first place - in which case if you don't think males or females exist then why do you want to be called the other one? It is illogical.
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.
Most of your case seems to rest upon the assertion that Newcastle is overrun by the most intellectually-incurious, apathetic halfwits on the planet, so no one else should aspire to anything better. Quite apart from this being a peculiarly self-abasing argument for one of its graduates to make, it's also depressingly antithetical to any serious idea of a university, let alone the one formulated by Newman.
I use Newcastle (as a city) as an example because I've attended both universities in Newcastle.
However your unsurprising snobbery is noted.
The snobbery is yours alone - you're the one who's been telling us ad nauseam that 99% of Newcastle students want literally nothing more from their time there than alcohol, sex, and a 2:1. I don't believe that's true of them at all - instead it's just you projecting your extraordinarily banausic view of education onto others.
'Banausic' is a new word to me - thanks, had to google. In Newcastle, "the beer did the job and got me drunk, but frankly it was a bit banausic". Heard all the time.
The trans-rights loon really are the most bizarre group. That wouldn't matter if they weren't so damned unpleasant: hurling abuse at anyone who dares make completely uncontroversial statements.
The loons should be called out for the loons that they are, but not diminish the problems for genuine trans people that they probably mostly do not represent.
FGM is "literal violence".
But under the new rules presumably the free speech czars will be protecting the trans rights extremists too.
That's the problem with protecting free speech, it includes things that you may not like.
The reality is that these new rules will protect "woke radicals" too. Indeed it stops them from being "no platformed".
Of course!
Of course woke radicals should have their speech protected. Of course trans extremists should have their speech protected. Their opponents should too. It should all be free speech.
My recollection of University, albeit the thick end of forty years ago, was the height of student radicalism was to boycott Barclays Bank because they supported apartheid (apparently).
I can't say there was a huge amount of political awareness even among those who purported to be politically aware. They did show "The War Game" one evening and that wasn't easy viewing. I imagine plenty came out of that avowed unilateralists.
My problem is that a lot of this stuff really does just look like bollocks to me, and I'm worried about missing some actually useful stuff I could do with reflecting on about my own attitudes because I've been put off by the prominence of the parts that look like bollocks. I like to think I don't just dismiss ideas out of hand merely because they are not within my wheelhouse, but I have an instinctive reaction to some of this stuff.
Handy to know some people of colour fall into categories of white identity.
I think we need to be careful in applying these principles, and those like it, to the UK. America has a long and complicated relationship with race and what applies and/or works there is not necessarily appropriate here in the UK.
"Defund the Police" is one such concept.
A lot of this is down to the urge for easily understood three word catchphrases. “Black Lives Matter” is snappier than “Black Lives Matter too” - which is clearly what is meant. “Defund the Police” rolls off the tongue far better than “Let’s Redirect resources from Police Departments to Social Welfare and Mental Health Programs” - which is in the small print (some do say “Abolish the Police” which admittedly does what is says on the tin).
“Take Back Control” was a masterstroke of the genre, as was “Get Brexit Done”.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
Sure, but surely any rules on free speech need to protect the opposite view too.
My problem is that a lot of this stuff really does just look like bollocks to me, and I'm worried about missing some actually useful stuff I could do with reflecting on about my own attitudes because I've been put off by the prominence of the parts that look like bollocks. I like to think I don't just dismiss ideas out of hand merely because they are not within my wheelhouse, but I have an instinctive reaction to some of this stuff.
Handy to know some people of colour fall into categories of white identity.
I think we need to be careful in applying these principles, and those like it, to the UK. America has a long and complicated relationship with race and what applies and/or works there is not necessarily appropriate here in the UK.
"Defund the Police" is one such concept.
I think there is a general danger in trying to take a principle that can apply universally - society should not be racist - and trying to apply universal solutions, when everywhere will be a little bit different in its challenges and extent. That one and others seemed a bit too much attempting to tap into a brand to make a global moment, which meant inevitable counterreaction had more bite.
I agree. I've had many debates with my more Corbynista-inclined friends about this.
I think it's easy to be suckered into virtue signalling, especially when certain aspects of our society are so heavily culturally influenced by the US.
People on here who mainly spend their online time on PB and reading the Telegraph may not understand the cultural implications of spending all your time on TikTok, Instagram, and websites like Reddit instead.
Suddenly the US cultural (read: coastal Dem) "world view" becomes your own.
It cuts through even more than watching American movies and TV shows.
My daughters live on social media. This does result in some hilarious moments as they "re-calibrate" to UK reality.
Im convinced that Labour wont win another election until and unless they completely turn their back on Woke-ism.
So post-Covid, post-Brexit, the world and our nation is crippled by economic inertia. But it's OK, the voters don't mind, they are still outraged at Starmer taking the knee.
Discourse on here tonight is stranger than normal.
Why would anyone no-platform Toby Young, I mean he’s an odious little twerp with some weird and unpopular views on lockdown, but hardly an extremist AFAIK?
And his bullshit needs to be challenged in the open so people realise what a tit he is so they ignore him in future.
It was of course very openly challenged at the recent Cambridge Union efficacy of lockdown debate, a debate he, Brady and Tice nevertheless won.
Errr ... you do realise the audience at the Cambridge Union is almost entirely made up of wankers looking to grease a smooth ride into our political parties.
A fair bit of truth in this.
Not what I remember from the Union at the other place. Yes, there certainly were some of those - and some have indeed appeared in government since - but most weren't.
I don't understand trans loons on this subject because someone who is genuinely trans tends to be someone who thinks they should be male but born in a female body, or female but born in a male body.
These loons seem to wish to deny the existance of females or males in the first place - in which case if you don't think males or females exist then why do you want to be called the other one? It is illogical.
I don't think logic comes into it!
It's certainly a very curious thing, and not obvious what is driving it, or why they are so very nasty. Clearly it's not being driven by genuine concern for anyone's rights; it seems to be more a throwback to the psychosis of old religious wars.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
Quite obviously so. They have to think of something that appeals to colonels in the shires, as well as Bernard Manning fans in the North.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
You've just said it even though it's not allowed. Terribly brave of you.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
Sure, but surely any rules on free speech need to protect the opposite view too.
Of course. 100%
Free speech doesn't mean squat unless it protects views you disagree with. But that's the point - ban views you disagree with and what's to stop others banning your own views?
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
To be fair, Mr Rushdie is a multi-state citizen. And was protected by the UK government. Despite some arguing that he shouldn't be. Quite a few on the Left, IIRC
he was a UK citizen and taxpayer when given the protection he had every right to. I don't remember anyone on the left saying he shouldn't have got it - but it was a long time ago. Anyone who did was plainly wrong.
Why would anyone no-platform Toby Young, I mean he’s an odious little twerp with some weird and unpopular views on lockdown, but hardly an extremist AFAIK?
And his bullshit needs to be challenged in the open so people realise what a tit he is so they ignore him in future.
It was of course very openly challenged at the recent Cambridge Union efficacy of lockdown debate, a debate he, Brady and Tice nevertheless won.
Errr ... you do realise the audience at the Cambridge Union is almost entirely made up of wankers looking to grease a smooth ride into our political parties.
The voting audience will have consisted of the most eccentric fops & fools amongst the Cambridge undergraduates.
Of course, there are plenty of hard-working & normal undergraduates at Cambridge, but they won't be in the Cambridge Union.
His views were challenged by those on the other side of the debate.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
Just a gentle reminder that making things up about me does not make a paper that talks about the UK government offering Salman Rushdie sanctuary a less than rigorous piece of work.
My recollection of University, albeit the thick end of forty years ago, was the height of student radicalism was to boycott Barclays Bank because they supported apartheid (apparently).
I can't say there was a huge amount of political awareness even among those who purported to be politically aware. They did show "The War Game" one evening and that wasn't easy viewing. I imagine plenty came out of that avowed unilateralists.
My Student Union was completely apolitical, apart from a certain amount of Gay liberation, though mid Eighties AIDS epidemic London had a lot to do with that.
Indeed it was dominated by heavy drinking Rugger players wanting cheap beer that they could drink through each others underpants.
The trans-rights loon really are the most bizarre group. That wouldn't matter if they weren't so damned unpleasant: hurling abuse at anyone who dares make completely uncontroversial statements.
The loons should be called out for the loons that they are, but not diminish the problems for genuine trans people that they probably mostly do not represent.
FGM is "literal violence".
Well, quite. And the victims are female.
Indeed.
I don't understand trans loons on this subject because someone who is genuinely trans tends to be someone who thinks they should be male but born in a female body, or female but born in a male body.
These loons seem to wish to deny the existance of females or males in the first place - in which case if you don't think males or females exist then why do you want to be called the other one? It is illogical.
Reading those testimonies, I was reminded of the many Russians who were completely baffled as to why, after a lifetime of being conscientious communists, they were still on a one-way trip to the gulags.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
Sure, but surely any rules on free speech need to protect the opposite view too.
Of course. If some loons want to go around claiming that biology is a patriarchal conspiracy theory, that XY chromosomes aren't distinguishable from XX chromosomes, and that having a willy, balls and a hairy chest but no uterus and no breasts is irrelevant to their sex, that's entirely their affair. Of course they should be entitled to free speech on that, in the same way as they would be entitled to claim the moon landings can't have been genuine because the moon is made of cheese and the rockets would have melted it. Mind you, you do have to wonder whether people holding such irrational ideas are really qualified to be students, let alone lecturers, at a university..
My recollection of University, albeit the thick end of forty years ago, was the height of student radicalism was to boycott Barclays Bank because they supported apartheid (apparently).
I can't say there was a huge amount of political awareness even among those who purported to be politically aware. They did show "The War Game" one evening and that wasn't easy viewing. I imagine plenty came out of that avowed unilateralists.
My Student Union was completely apolitical, apart from a certain amount of Gay liberation, though mid Eighties AIDS epidemic London had a lot to do with that.
Indeed it was dominated by heavy drinking Rugger players wanting cheap beer that they could drink through each others underpants.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
Indeed. If the government really wants to defund the National Trust because it points out that some of the properties it looks after were built and owned by people who made huge amounts of money from selling and/or exploiting slaves, then the government should just be open about it.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
To be fair, Mr Rushdie is a multi-state citizen. And was protected by the UK government. Despite some arguing that he shouldn't be. Quite a few on the Left, IIRC
he was a UK citizen and taxpayer when given the protection he had every right to. I don't remember anyone on the left saying he shouldn't have got it - but it was a long time ago. Anyone who did was plainly wrong.
Shirley Williams and Roy Hattersley (for example) were quite keen that that the UK government shouldn't be so "offensive" in their protection of Rushdie.
Hattersley in particular wanted to UK government to withdraw all protests against the bounty on his head by Iran and for Rushdie to withdraw the book.
Rushdie's protection was an extremely unusual and very expensive undertaking. IIRC it cost more than protecting the Northern Ireland Sec., for a while.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
Indeed. If the government really wants to defund the National Trust because it points out that some of the properties it looks after were built and owned by people who made huge amounts of money from selling and/or exploiting slaves, then the government should just be open about it.
That would be unacceptable to me.
The Government does not have a right to determine how others exercise their speech rights.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
Quite obviously so. They have to think of something that appeals to colonels in the shires, as well as Bernard Manning fans in the North.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
And labour have to think of something that appeals to their huge cohort of young voters.
Right now they are offering an everlasting diet of restriction, education disruption, increased poverty, mass unemployment and enormous debt. All over a disease that does not affect these voters that badly.
That 38% labour are on? its got to be the softest 38% ever.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
To be fair, Mr Rushdie is a multi-state citizen. And was protected by the UK government. Despite some arguing that he shouldn't be. Quite a few on the Left, IIRC
he was a UK citizen and taxpayer when given the protection he had every right to. I don't remember anyone on the left saying he shouldn't have got it - but it was a long time ago. Anyone who did was plainly wrong.
Shirley Williams and Roy Hattersley (for example) were quite keen that that the UK government shouldn't be so "offensive" in their protection of Rushdie.
Hattersley in particular wanted to UK government to withdraw all protests against the bounty on his head by Iran and for Rushdie to withdraw the book.
Rushdie's protection was an extremely unusual and very expensive undertaking. IIRC it cost more than protecting the Northern Ireland Sec., for a while.
Well, Hattersley and Williams were wrong. Rushdie - a British citizen - had every right to the protection he was given and to write the book in the first place. The protection was, of course, unusual. The supreme leader of Iran had not threatened any other UK citizen in the same way.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
Quite obviously so. They have to think of something that appeals to colonels in the shires, as well as Bernard Manning fans in the North.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
And labour have to think of something that appeals to their huge cohort of young voters.
They had that. It was called Corbynism. Unfortunately it wasn't enough.
My recollection of University, albeit the thick end of forty years ago, was the height of student radicalism was to boycott Barclays Bank because they supported apartheid (apparently).
I can't say there was a huge amount of political awareness even among those who purported to be politically aware. They did show "The War Game" one evening and that wasn't easy viewing. I imagine plenty came out of that avowed unilateralists.
My Student Union was completely apolitical, apart from a certain amount of Gay liberation, though mid Eighties AIDS epidemic London had a lot to do with that.
Indeed it was dominated by heavy drinking Rugger players wanting cheap beer that they could drink through each others underpants.
Imperial?
Not me!
Though obviously Imperial College should be renamed after something less oppressive...
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
Quite obviously so. They have to think of something that appeals to colonels in the shires, as well as Bernard Manning fans in the North.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
And labour have to think of something that appeals to their huge cohort of young voters.
Right now they are offering an everlasting diet of restriction, education disruption, increased poverty, mass unemployment and enormous debt. All over a disease that does not affect these voters that badly.
That 38% labour are on? its got to be the softest 38% ever.
*Yawn*
You do realise we're vaccinating against the disease now don't you?
You do realise the restrictions are not everlasting, they'll like end in the Spring don't you?
You do realise that by 2024 we may be dealing with the legacy of the disease but we won't be still in lockdown don't you?
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.
Most of your case seems to rest upon the assertion that Newcastle is overrun by the most intellectually-incurious, apathetic halfwits on the planet, so no one else should aspire to anything better. Quite apart from this being a peculiarly self-abasing argument for one of its graduates to make, it's also depressingly antithetical to any serious idea of a university, let alone the one formulated by Newman.
I use Newcastle (as a city) as an example because I've attended both universities in Newcastle.
However your unsurprising snobbery is noted.
The snobbery is yours alone - you're the one who's been telling us ad nauseam that 99% of Newcastle students want literally nothing more from their time there than alcohol, sex, and a 2:1. I don't believe that's true of them at all - instead it's just you projecting your extraordinarily banausic view of education onto others.
'Banausic' is a new word to me - thanks, had to google. In Newcastle, "the beer did the job and got me drunk, but frankly it was a bit banausic". Heard all the time.
Ironically, all the hipsters there would want their beer to be 'banausic' these days - βάναυσος having originally meant an artisan or craftsman.
Indeed. If the government really wants to defund the National Trust because it points out that some of the properties it looks after were built and owned by people who made huge amounts of money from selling and/or exploiting slaves, then the government should just be open about it.
The problem with the National Trust isn't that it is spending too much effort on researching and telling us about the houses and the families that built them, it's actually the opposite: they tell us very little about them. The NT magazine, for example, is just like a corporate brochure, with lots of pictures of smiling kids playing games and very little, and that very superficial, about the fantastic archives which they must have.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wishes you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a changing room in front of your seven year old daughter?
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?
I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
Indeed. If the government really wants to defund the National Trust because it points out that some of the properties it looks after were built and owned by people who made huge amounts of money from selling and/or exploiting slaves, then the government should just be open about it.
That would be unacceptable to me.
The Government does not have a right to determine how others exercise their speech rights.
In terms of heritage organisations that is very much their intent, isn't it?
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
Quite obviously so. They have to think of something that appeals to colonels in the shires, as well as Bernard Manning fans in the North.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
An interesting theory given that most of the red-faced colonels in the shires with bristling moustaches probably died more than 15 years ago. Todays older voters are in fact largely the hippy generation.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
They're not telling them what to say: they're simply saying the presumption should be to retain and explain their heritage, and to undertake a proper public consultation for anything more drastic including a planning process.
Freedom of speech of course protects all directions, whether you agree or disagree with any particular train of thought.
If you believe in free speech for "TERFs" then you should also believe in free speech for those preaching about "toxic masculinity".
You're only a defender of free speech if you back the speech you disagree with as well as that you agree with.
I don't believe Corbynistas should be allowed a public platform, when the plan is to spew their anti-Semitism bile. If they want to bang on about how great life in Soviet Russia was, that is fine. What's wrong with that?
My recollection of University, albeit the thick end of forty years ago, was the height of student radicalism was to boycott Barclays Bank because they supported apartheid (apparently).
I can't say there was a huge amount of political awareness even among those who purported to be politically aware. They did show "The War Game" one evening and that wasn't easy viewing. I imagine plenty came out of that avowed unilateralists.
My Student Union was completely apolitical, apart from a certain amount of Gay liberation, though mid Eighties AIDS epidemic London had a lot to do with that.
Indeed it was dominated by heavy drinking Rugger players wanting cheap beer that they could drink through each others underpants.
Really?
We were supergluing the Barclays ATMs, flour-bombing visiting Tory MPs, rent-striking & occupying Tutor's Offices.
I thought that was the standard student experience -- along with the druggy sex & the sexy drugs.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
Just a gentle reminder that making things up about me does not make a paper that talks about the UK government offering Salman Rushdie sanctuary a less than rigorous piece of work.
I'm using your own words. The rest is a bit of weak whataboutism.
I'm surprised by it anyway. You're no fan of the radical Left.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?
I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
That sounds expensive. Doesn't sound good to me that I have to pay much more in gym membership to protect the rights of a vanishingly tiny minority.
What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?
I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
That sounds expensive.
What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?
Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.
Surely there must be a third way.
I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?
I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
That sounds expensive. Doesn't sound good to me that I have to pay much more in gym membership to protect the rights of a vanishingly tiny minority.
What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?
For prisons I would go based on if they've had an op or not.
If they've got a penis they're male - whether they were born with it or not.
If they don't they're not - whether born with one or not.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
Just a gentle reminder that making things up about me does not make a paper that talks about the UK government offering Salman Rushdie sanctuary a less than rigorous piece of work.
I'm using your own words. The rest is a bit of weak whataboutism.
I'm surprised by it anyway. You're no fan of the radical Left.
So what's the problem?
Hmmm - my own words?
"Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office."
No, my objection is that the government has produced a very poorly researched piece of populism that vastly overstates the problem at universities, while at the same time telling museums and heritage organisations what bits of history they should and should not be sharing with us.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
Quite obviously so. They have to think of something that appeals to colonels in the shires, as well as Bernard Manning fans in the North.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
And labour have to think of something that appeals to their huge cohort of young voters.
Right now they are offering an everlasting diet of restriction, education disruption, increased poverty, mass unemployment and enormous debt. All over a disease that does not affect these voters that badly.
That 38% labour are on? its got to be the softest 38% ever.
*Yawn*
You do realise we're vaccinating against the disease now don't you?
You do realise the restrictions are not everlasting, they'll like end in the Spring don't you?
You do realise that by 2024 we may be dealing with the legacy of the disease but we won't be still in lockdown don't you?
I am not, for once, talking about the tories and lockdown. I am talking about labour, lockdown, and labour's core vote.
If you were a young person, would you vote labour now? after they cheered on every restriction imposed and said it wasn't enough?
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.
"It's the most middle-class obsession ever."
But you said it was the obsession of right-wingers!
Working class right-wingers certainly do not care about who speaks at universities.
For what it is worth, I think the NUS is run by nutters and that the obsession with "safe spaces" and "no platforming" is equally as ridiculous.
But to be THAT bothered about who speaks at universities that you advocate using valuable legislative time to actually make laws about it, Jesus Christ.
It's pathetic.
It's culture war. Make you care about that, so you don't realise we live in an oligarchy where the government funnels money to its mates, and will never do anything beneficial about housing, education, social care, etc.
Im convinced that Labour wont win another election until and unless they completely turn their back on Woke-ism.
You say that like its a bad thing, we have a democracy with 3 social democrat parties with various amounts of authoritarianism and yes I discard refuk as they are meaningless....about time we had a proper right wing small state party
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
Indeed. If the government really wants to defund the National Trust because it points out that some of the properties it looks after were built and owned by people who made huge amounts of money from selling and/or exploiting slaves, then the government should just be open about it.
If you read the National Trust report (and I have) you'll see the problem wasn't pointing out those facts to complete the picture; it's the fact they drew broader conclusions about British history as a result - by several leading left-wing academics - and wanted to use to drive their framing and policy.
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.
"It's the most middle-class obsession ever."
But you said it was the obsession of right-wingers!
Working class right-wingers certainly do not care about who speaks at universities.
For what it is worth, I think the NUS is run by nutters and that the obsession with "safe spaces" and "no platforming" is equally as ridiculous.
But to be THAT bothered about who speaks at universities that you advocate using valuable legislative time to actually make laws about it, Jesus Christ.
It's pathetic.
It's culture war. Make you care about that, so you don't realise we live in an oligarchy where the government funnels money to its mates, and will never do anything beneficial about housing, education, social care, etc.
and when labour gets in power it does it even worse, you do know house prices spiralled out of control under labour?
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
Quite obviously so. They have to think of something that appeals to colonels in the shires, as well as Bernard Manning fans in the North.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
An interesting theory given that most of the red-faced colonels in the shires with bristling moustaches probably died more than 15 years ago. Todays older voters are in fact largely the hippy generation.
I think that the Bernard Manning stereotype is just as archaic.
Something that should give Tory culture warriors pause for thought...
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
Indeed. If the government really wants to defund the National Trust because it points out that some of the properties it looks after were built and owned by people who made huge amounts of money from selling and/or exploiting slaves, then the government should just be open about it.
If you read the National Trust report (and I have) you'll see the problem wasn't pointing out those facts to complete the picture; it's the fact they drew broader conclusions about British history as a result - by several leading left-wing academics - and wanted to use to drive their framing and policy.
Yes, I remember that you did not like what the National Trust did.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
Just a gentle reminder that making things up about me does not make a paper that talks about the UK government offering Salman Rushdie sanctuary a less than rigorous piece of work.
I'm using your own words. The rest is a bit of weak whataboutism.
I'm surprised by it anyway. You're no fan of the radical Left.
So what's the problem?
Hmmm - my own words?
"Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office."
No, my objection is that the government has produced a very poorly researched piece of populism that vastly overstates the problem at universities, while at the same time telling museums and heritage organisations what bits of history they should and should not be sharing with us.
That this Government is prosecuting culture war is your argument. And it's a very weak one.
The rest of your post is derisory. There is a serious problem with no platforming at universities that several moderate Remain and (now) Lib Dem politicians have pointed out, and clarifying heritage policy to inhibit the likes of Baden-Powell being torn down as part of a faddish trend is common sense to most people.
You've got high on your own supply. I've no idea why you've chosen this hill to die on. It's weird.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
They need something to hide Brexit issues behind once Covid has ran it's course.
Culture war is how the Tories clearly believe they can keep their largely elderly, socially conservative voting coalition together given that its constituent parts have very different views on economic policy.
Quite obviously so. They have to think of something that appeals to colonels in the shires, as well as Bernard Manning fans in the North.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
And labour have to think of something that appeals to their huge cohort of young voters.
Right now they are offering an everlasting diet of restriction, education disruption, increased poverty, mass unemployment and enormous debt. All over a disease that does not affect these voters that badly.
That 38% labour are on? its got to be the softest 38% ever.
*Yawn*
You do realise we're vaccinating against the disease now don't you?
You do realise the restrictions are not everlasting, they'll like end in the Spring don't you?
You do realise that by 2024 we may be dealing with the legacy of the disease but we won't be still in lockdown don't you?
I am not, for once, talking about the tories and lockdown. I am talking about labour, lockdown, and labour's core vote.
If you were a young person, would you vote labour now? after they cheered on every restriction imposed and said it wasn't enough?
If I were a young Labour voter? Yes, because in 2024 I would be looking to the future.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?
I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
That sounds expensive.
What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?
Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.
Surely there must be a third way.
I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.
I agree with your last sentence (ha!), but I think the penultimate one is a bit optimistic. The issue to me is that the curent agendas (agendae? agendata?) for trans and women's rights are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled. To the extent that the Left has come to terms with this, their answer seems to be that the rights of the former overrule the rights of the latter wherever there's a conflict. Stepping aside from the moral issues for a minute, this is an absolutely losing electoral strategy in the long run, in pure numbers terms.
The point in your last sentence (which, again, I agree with) is that there's absolutely no reason for this, and it should be simple to find a trans rights agenda everyone can support which accomplishes everything it needs to whilst not infringing anyone else's rights. It's just that the Left currently hasn't done that.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
The government telling museums and heritage organisations what they should say is the bit I'm unclear about and feel most uncomfortable about.
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
Indeed. If the government really wants to defund the National Trust because it points out that some of the properties it looks after were built and owned by people who made huge amounts of money from selling and/or exploiting slaves, then the government should just be open about it.
If you read the National Trust report (and I have) you'll see the problem wasn't pointing out those facts to complete the picture; it's the fact they drew broader conclusions about British history as a result - by several leading left-wing academics - and wanted to use to drive their framing and policy.
Yes, I remember that you did not like what the National Trust did.
You see, whenever you resort to ad hominem like that rather than engage with the argument I know it's because you fear you might not have one.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
Just a gentle reminder that making things up about me does not make a paper that talks about the UK government offering Salman Rushdie sanctuary a less than rigorous piece of work.
I'm using your own words. The rest is a bit of weak whataboutism.
I'm surprised by it anyway. You're no fan of the radical Left.
So what's the problem?
Hmmm - my own words?
"Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office."
No, my objection is that the government has produced a very poorly researched piece of populism that vastly overstates the problem at universities, while at the same time telling museums and heritage organisations what bits of history they should and should not be sharing with us.
That this Government is prosecuting culture war is your argument. And it's a very weak one.
The rest of your post is derisory. There is a serious problem with no platforming at universities that several moderate Remain and (now) Lib Dem politicians have pointed out, and clarifying heritage policy to inhibit the likes of Baden-Powell being torn down as part of a faddish trend is common sense to most people.
You've got high on your own supply. I've no idea why you've chosen this hill to die on. It's weird.
Its not a culture war the left are merely upset that after years of their insane wokery bullshit people are actually going no fuck off and reacting against it
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?
I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
That sounds expensive.
What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?
Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.
Surely there must be a third way.
I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.
If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.
We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.
To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.
The paper talks about Salman Rushdie - a UK citizen - being offered sanctuary by the UK. That gives us a decent flavour of the rigour with which it has been put together. It's almost as if the government has nothing to offer except culture war.
Just a gentle reminder: this isn't Twitter and we're not your adoring followers who lap up your spin.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
Just a gentle reminder that making things up about me does not make a paper that talks about the UK government offering Salman Rushdie sanctuary a less than rigorous piece of work.
I'm using your own words. The rest is a bit of weak whataboutism.
I'm surprised by it anyway. You're no fan of the radical Left.
So what's the problem?
Hmmm - my own words?
"Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office."
No, my objection is that the government has produced a very poorly researched piece of populism that vastly overstates the problem at universities, while at the same time telling museums and heritage organisations what bits of history they should and should not be sharing with us.
That this Government is prosecuting culture war is your argument. And it's a very weak one.
The rest of your post is derisory. There is a serious problem with no platforming at universities that several moderate Remain and (now) Lib Dem politicians have pointed out, and clarifying heritage policy to inhibit the likes of Baden-Powell being torn down as part of a faddish trend is common sense to most people.
You've got high on your own supply. I've no idea why you've chosen this hill to die on. It's weird.
Its not a culture war the left are merely upset that after years of their insane wokery bullshit people are actually going no fuck off and reacting against it
It bloody well is a culture war. The Tories are just years late to the party, and are finding they have some work to do to shoo Lefty tanks off their lawn before they can do any actual fighting.
Oh, I fully understand. Hate speech by those the government likes is permitted, but not by those it dislikes.
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
What about people who make the simple point that a man isn't a woman? Keep it simple, that is the acid test of free speech (and, indeed, non-looniness) in the culture-war stakes.
My position is: if someone identifies as a man but is biologically female, and wishes you to use male pronouns, then it's just plain rude not to. Likewise in the reverse.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
What about a person who identifies as a woman but is biologically male, and wished you to consent to (her) right to swing her hairy bollocks around in a change room in front of your seven year old daughter?
I already addressed that. The solution is individual changing rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
That sounds expensive.
What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?
Well this is the difficulty. I don't think biological women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men but likewise I don't think biological men who identify as women should be forced to be imprisoned with biological men.
Surely there must be a third way.
I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.
If they're biologically male but identify as female but have had no op whatsoever then I would put them in a male prison.
We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.
To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.
You think a biological man who has boobs after top surgery but still has a penis should be in a mans prison? You think that will protect people from rape?
My recollection of University, albeit the thick end of forty years ago, was the height of student radicalism was to boycott Barclays Bank because they supported apartheid (apparently).
I can't say there was a huge amount of political awareness even among those who purported to be politically aware. They did show "The War Game" one evening and that wasn't easy viewing. I imagine plenty came out of that avowed unilateralists.
My Student Union was completely apolitical, apart from a certain amount of Gay liberation, though mid Eighties AIDS epidemic London had a lot to do with that.
Indeed it was dominated by heavy drinking Rugger players wanting cheap beer that they could drink through each others underpants.
Really?
We were supergluing the Barclays ATMs, flour-bombing visiting Tory MPs, rent-striking & occupying Tutor's Offices.
I thought that was the standard student experience -- along with the druggy sex & the sexy drugs.
Yes, I was at a London Medical School. heavy drinking, rugby, boat and hockey clubs, and heteronormative misogyny dominated. In which I actively participated.
Indeed we had a drinking club, with the sole object of promoting Thursday night drinking. To join you had to do either a yard of ale in 2 min, or 7 pints in an hour with a penalty pint for each vomit. The AGM was riotous.
Comments
That's right: asserting that Female Genital Mutilation happens to females an act of "literal violence" against the trans community.
https://www.gcacademianetwork.org/
The trans-rights loon really are the most bizarre group. That wouldn't matter if they weren't so damned unpleasant: hurling abuse at anyone who dares make completely uncontroversial statements.
Incitement to violence should be a crime. "Hate" should not. If someone is spewing hatred then expose and challenge them, don't drive it underground.
FGM is "literal violence".
I think it's easy to be suckered into virtue signalling, especially when certain aspects of our society are so heavily culturally influenced by the US.
People on here who mainly spend their online time on PB and reading the Telegraph may not understand the cultural implications of spending all your time on TikTok, Instagram, and websites like Reddit instead.
Suddenly the US cultural (read: coastal Dem) "world view" becomes your own.
It cuts through even more than watching American movies and TV shows.
No-one would give a shit about "spend a bit less on the police force, and a bit more on community development initiatives".
The trouble is the side-effects of this is massive political polarisation and division.
Sometimes it's better to stick with the boring and less sexy messages and build support (slowly) from the bottom up through gentle influence. The trouble is that doesn't massage the ego.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2021/02/gavin-williamson-s-proposals-free-speech-and-universities-are-half-baked
In fact, I'd argue that (said in the right way) you can say almost anything *provided* you say it in the right way.
The trouble is that people are judged (disproportionately) on selective content taken out of context.
For over a decade he was given armed Police protection, moved around in bullet proof cars - the state spent about £1m per annum protecting him. If that's not sanctuary then what would you call it?
So misogynist Incels are fine, Islamists not. Homophobic Protestants fine and dandy, homophones Islamists not.
It will be interesting to see how Islamist societies get on with this free speech malarkey.
The voting audience will have consisted of the most eccentric fops & fools amongst the Cambridge undergraduates.
Of course, there are plenty of hard-working & normal undergraduates at Cambridge, but they won't be in the Cambridge Union.
That's the problem with protecting free speech, it includes things that you may not like.
The reality is that these new rules will protect "woke radicals" too. Indeed it stops them from being "no platformed".
I don't understand trans loons on this subject because someone who is genuinely trans tends to be someone who thinks they should be male but born in a female body, or female but born in a male body.
These loons seem to wish to deny the existance of females or males in the first place - in which case if you don't think males or females exist then why do you want to be called the other one? It is illogical.
Of course woke radicals should have their speech protected. Of course trans extremists should have their speech protected. Their opponents should too. It should all be free speech.
Why should trans extremists be "no platformed"?
My recollection of University, albeit the thick end of forty years ago, was the height of student radicalism was to boycott Barclays Bank because they supported apartheid (apparently).
I can't say there was a huge amount of political awareness even among those who purported to be politically aware. They did show "The War Game" one evening and that wasn't easy viewing. I imagine plenty came out of that avowed unilateralists.
“Take Back Control” was a masterstroke of the genre, as was “Get Brexit Done”.
Discourse on here tonight is stranger than normal.
It's certainly a very curious thing, and not obvious what is driving it, or why they are so very nasty. Clearly it's not being driven by genuine concern for anyone's rights; it seems to be more a throwback to the psychosis of old religious wars.
Jo Johnson and Sam Gyimah were sufficiently concerned about free speech at universities 3 years ago to start to look into it and write to universities. Nor is asking museums and heritage organisations to "retain and explain" longstanding heritage - rather than pulling it down - in an attempt to find a middle ground and soothe tensions an example of culture war.
Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office.
Not my cup of tea, and a hiding to nothing I expect.
Free speech doesn't mean squat unless it protects views you disagree with. But that's the point - ban views you disagree with and what's to stop others banning your own views?
Heritage organisations and museums should be able to say whatever they want, within the law.
Indeed it was dominated by heavy drinking Rugger players wanting cheap beer that they could drink through each others underpants.
The issue of bathrooms is complicated but it is solved by simply having individual toilet and sink rooms. They're better for everyone concerned anyway.
I doubt many Trans people would actually find the term FGM offensive, amongst many other things.
However asserting wide statements designed to inflame such as "a man isn't a woman" isn't helpful to the debate in any case. It has nothing to do with "woke".
Hattersley in particular wanted to UK government to withdraw all protests against the bounty on his head by Iran and for Rushdie to withdraw the book.
Rushdie's protection was an extremely unusual and very expensive undertaking. IIRC it cost more than protecting the Northern Ireland Sec., for a while.
The Government does not have a right to determine how others exercise their speech rights.
Right now they are offering an everlasting diet of restriction, education disruption, increased poverty, mass unemployment and enormous debt. All over a disease that does not affect these voters that badly.
That 38% labour are on? its got to be the softest 38% ever.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/man-who-jeremy-corbyn-power-5009125
It would be a shame if Lansman isn't returned to the obscurity he deserves.
It's natural gas power stations that have found everyone else wants gas to heat their homes and are under delivering.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1361757001844408320
Though obviously Imperial College should be renamed after something less oppressive...
🤣🤣🤣
You do realise we're vaccinating against the disease now don't you?
You do realise the restrictions are not everlasting, they'll like end in the Spring don't you?
You do realise that by 2024 we may be dealing with the legacy of the disease but we won't be still in lockdown don't you?
No platform for historians of the slave trade...
We were supergluing the Barclays ATMs, flour-bombing visiting Tory MPs, rent-striking & occupying Tutor's Offices.
I thought that was the standard student experience -- along with the druggy sex & the sexy drugs.
I'm surprised by it anyway. You're no fan of the radical Left.
So what's the problem?
What about prisons? Do convicted rapists, alone among the UK population, lose the right to self identification, or do you allow them to assert their right to spend their sentence in women's prisons?
Surely there must be a third way.
I also don't think that in any way diminishes or disrespects trans people.
If they've got a penis they're male - whether they were born with it or not.
If they don't they're not - whether born with one or not.
"Your objection is that the Government is now putting up a political defence in a realm that has hitherto been the unchallenged terrain of the radical Left, and you fear it will be both effective and popular and thus help keep them in office."
No, my objection is that the government has produced a very poorly researched piece of populism that vastly overstates the problem at universities, while at the same time telling museums and heritage organisations what bits of history they should and should not be sharing with us.
If you were a young person, would you vote labour now? after they cheered on every restriction imposed and said it wasn't enough?
Something that should give Tory culture warriors pause for thought...
The rest of your post is derisory. There is a serious problem with no platforming at universities that several moderate Remain and (now) Lib Dem politicians have pointed out, and clarifying heritage policy to inhibit the likes of Baden-Powell being torn down as part of a faddish trend is common sense to most people.
You've got high on your own supply. I've no idea why you've chosen this hill to die on. It's weird.
The point in your last sentence (which, again, I agree with) is that there's absolutely no reason for this, and it should be simple to find a trans rights agenda everyone can support which accomplishes everything it needs to whilst not infringing anyone else's rights. It's just that the Left currently hasn't done that.
We segregate the sexes not because of how people "identify" but basically to prevent eg men from raping women.
To be crude the fact that a biological man identifies as a woman isn't going to entice men to rape him/her. The fact someone has tits and a vagina might.
Indeed we had a drinking club, with the sole object of promoting Thursday night drinking. To join you had to do either a yard of ale in 2 min, or 7 pints in an hour with a penalty pint for each vomit. The AGM was riotous.