For the first time since July Johnson is back on top in YouGov’s “Best PM” ratings – politicalbettin

Time_to_Leave said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Gallowgate said:

Sandpit said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?

Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.

Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.

But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.

There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.

'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.

This is what freedom of speech looks like:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY

You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.

We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.

You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.

It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.

This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.

Of course it’s a free speech issue.

One side is in favour of freedom of speech.

The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.

Which side are you on?

Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?

One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)

Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.

The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.

One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.

But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.

Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?

I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.

So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.

Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.

I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.

If I recall my Union rep training properly it would probably be unfair dismissal on the basis of discrimination, and you’d get a payout. But unless they were stupid they’d make you fight to prove that was the reason, and your chances of success would depend on how long you'd worked there etc.

Pagan2 said:

One of the problems I have with no platforming is it occurs even when the subject of the talk is not anything to do with why they are no platforming. An example might for example be JK Rowling being invited to speak by a writers group then the trans lobby decides she can't speak even though the subject she is going to talk about is the pitfalls to becoming a published author

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.

It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.

On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.

Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.

Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.

However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.

https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?=frlh

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.

It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.

On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.

Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.

Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.

However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.

https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?=frlh

I think you are pretty spot on there HYUFD which is why I am a liberal and not a Tory. I am completely gobsmacked how often the Tories come up with totally socialist stuff and have no idea they have done it.

Eg capping energy prices. What next carrots? The USSR would have been proud. What happened to market forces? There were other ways of protecting those being exploited.

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.

It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.

On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.

Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.

Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.

However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.

https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?=frlh

I think you are pretty spot on there HYUFD which is why I am a liberal and not a Tory. I am completely gobsmacked how often the Tories come up with totally socialist stuff and have no idea they have done it.

Eg capping energy prices. What next carrots? The USSR would have been proud. What happened to market forces? There were other ways of protecting those being exploited.

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Gallowgate said:

Sandpit said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?

Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.

Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.

But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.

There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.

'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.

This is what freedom of speech looks like:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY

You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.

We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.

You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.

It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.

This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.

Of course it’s a free speech issue.

One side is in favour of freedom of speech.

The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.

Which side are you on?

Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?

One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)

Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.

The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.

One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.

But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.

Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?

I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.

So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.

Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.

I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.

As far as I understand it if it's related to the job (eg the Tory Party realises it's got Labour voters as employees) then it's unlikely to be unfair but for generic non political jobs a tribunal is unlikely to view it as a fair dismissal. If a non political business owner said at a General Election he'd fire anyone who doesn't vote Tory you really don't think the law would object to that?

Crucially the law does say that for firings due to political views the two year window where you can't sue does not apply.

MoD tried to get rid of someone for being a SNP activist, and IIRC councillor too. This was in Scotland (rather expectedly) so I don't know if the law is different. But he kept his job as a belief in Scottish independence was regarded as a philosophical belief etc.

Gallowgate said:

Mortimer said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/01/bristol-university-students-seek-ban-terf-speakers-question/

I can't read the article as it's behind a paywall. Can you explain the details please?

Feminists like Linda Bellos and Germaine Greer (and others) have been no-platformed for holding allegedly "Terf" views

This happens often enough to be a concern. Another example:

"An Oxford University professor whose invitation to a conference celebrating women was withdrawn has defended her stance on transgender rights issues.

Selina Todd was "no-platformed" by the Oxford International Women's Festival, at which she had been due to speak"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51737206

And another:


"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36101423

You haven't given me the details.

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.

eek said:

Going back to the culture wars

It seems that the Government's proposal are plagiarized from elsewhere
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1361719947156725764

Isn't plagiarizing an instant fail?

MarqueeMark said:

Pfizerd up. Yay! Superb organisation. Running on rails. Hats off to all concerned.

It is a significant relief after a year, that if I keep myself safe for 3 more weeks, I can now realistically wave goodbye to Covid doing me serious harm. Or doing me in. Hope you are all in my happy position in not very long at all.

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.

It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.

On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.

Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.

Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.

However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.

https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?=frlh

I think you are pretty spot on there HYUFD which is why I am a liberal and not a Tory. I am completely gobsmacked how often the Tories come up with totally socialist stuff and have no idea they have done it.

Eg capping energy prices. What next carrots? The USSR would have been proud. What happened to market forces? There were other ways of protecting those being exploited.

Certainly I would agree Ed Davey's LDs are the most classically liberal and small state of the main parties in the UK at present

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

isam said:

Leon said:

fpt for StuartinRomford

"Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet.

Hardly anyone does, in the same way that hardly any uni students go and see him in person."

*Hardly anyone* is an interesting definition of "millions of people"

Here's one of Peterson's lectures on Bible history (not an obviously sexy subject)

It has had...... 7.8 MILLION views.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

He is an extremely popular academic. One of the most high profile in the world. Your remarks are laughably stupid.

I thought that was a strange thing to say - he demonstrably has a very large audience

"12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is a 2018 self-help book by Canadian clinical psychologist and psychology professor Jordan Peterson. It provides life advice through essays in abstract ethical principles, psychology, mythology, religion, and personal anecdotes.

The book topped bestseller lists in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and has sold over five million copies worldwide"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life

Yes, it was a cretinously erroneous comment. StuartinRomford clearly couldn't even be bothered to check.

10 million out of a potential Anglosphere audience of a billion or so? Cos that's what Youtube gives you.

So about 1 percent.

I wouldn't question whether he is a significant public intellectual, who might be interesting to people who are interested in that sort of thing.

The point is that most people aren't

He's giving a talk about Bible history, and he gets 10 million views. That's more than almost any TV programme in the UK

OK, try this one:

Here he's being interviewed by Helen Lewis about Patriarchy

24 MILLION views


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s&t=640s


Jordan Peterson is also in the top ten "most watched lectures" of any kind, on YouTube, which is THE place to reach a global audience, these days


https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lectures&sp=CAM%3D

I mean, go ahead, knock yourself out, claim that is "hardly anybody". It is simply ridiculous

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Gallowgate said:

Sandpit said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.

It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.

If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?

Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.

This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!

It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.

Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.

If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.

But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.

Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.

There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.

So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.

'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.

What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.

This is what freedom of speech looks like:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4iKfrY9l2kY

You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.

We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.

You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.

It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.

This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.

Of course it’s a free speech issue.

One side is in favour of freedom of speech.

The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.

Which side are you on?

Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?

One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)

Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.

The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.

One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.

But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.

Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?

I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.

So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.

Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.

I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.

As far as I understand it if it's related to the job (eg the Tory Party realises it's got Labour voters as employees) then it's unlikely to be unfair but for generic non political jobs a tribunal is unlikely to view it as a fair dismissal. If a non political business owner said at a General Election he'd fire anyone who doesn't vote Tory you really don't think the law would object to that?

Crucially the law does say that for firings due to political views the two year window where you can't sue does not apply.

MoD tried to get rid of someone for being a SNP activist, and IIRC councillor too. This was in Scotland (rather expectedly) so I don't know if the law is different. But he kept his job as a belief in Scottish independence was regarded as a philosophical belief etc.

If something can be defined as a "belief" or value it does not have to be religious to be protected. Veganism was recently held up (at Court of Appeal if I remember correctly) as a protected belief set. I don't know how far this will go. Is QAnon such a belief, or belief in the lizard people? Who knows, but Veganism is definitely in there so I would think Scottish Independence would also be classified as such whether north or south of the border

dixiedean said:

Divven sell yoursel short canny lad.

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Pfizerd up. Yay! Superb organisation. Running on rails. Hats off to all concerned.

It is a significant relief after a year, that if I keep myself safe for 3 more weeks, I can now realistically wave goodbye to Covid doing me serious harm. Or doing me in. Hope you are all in my happy position in not very long at all.

Good for you. Can I ask what PG you are in?

My older daughter's mum was vaxxed today. AZ. She's in PG6 in London

PG7

Given the rate that PG6 is expanding with all the special pleading, you did very well to get the vaccine down at 7.

Gallowgate said:

Mortimer said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/01/bristol-university-students-seek-ban-terf-speakers-question/

I can't read the article as it's behind a paywall. Can you explain the details please?

Feminists like Linda Bellos and Germaine Greer (and others) have been no-platformed for holding allegedly "Terf" views

This happens often enough to be a concern. Another example:

"An Oxford University professor whose invitation to a conference celebrating women was withdrawn has defended her stance on transgender rights issues.

Selina Todd was "no-platformed" by the Oxford International Women's Festival, at which she had been due to speak"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51737206

And another:


"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36101423

You haven't given me the details.

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.

WhisperingOracle said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.

It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.

On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.

Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.

Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.

However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.

https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?=frlh

I think you are pretty spot on there HYUFD which is why I am a liberal and not a Tory. I am completely gobsmacked how often the Tories come up with totally socialist stuff and have no idea they have done it.

Eg capping energy prices. What next carrots? The USSR would have been proud. What happened to market forces? There were other ways of protecting those being exploited.

Such policies have been enacted in continental countries that are nowhere near the USSR, ofcourse.

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.

It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.

On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.

Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.

Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.

However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.

https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?=frlh

I think you are pretty spot on there HYUFD which is why I am a liberal and not a Tory. I am completely gobsmacked how often the Tories come up with totally socialist stuff and have no idea they have done it.

Eg capping energy prices. What next carrots? The USSR would have been proud. What happened to market forces? There were other ways of protecting those being exploited.

Certainly I would agree Ed Davey's LDs are the most classically liberal and small state of the main parties in the UK at present

But they are hideously infected by Woke-ism

Black_Rook said:

Malmesbury said:

Black_Rook said:

Afternoon everyone.

I take it that we've all seen the news about shielding by now - in particular, the reports that all the letters to the new additions to the list are going to tell them to sit at home until March 31st?

If ever proof were required that the whole country is going to be kept under lock and key for a long time, it's that. If it's claimed to be too dangerous for the vulnerable even to leave the house then the prospect of anything whatever re-opening apart from schools is precisely zero.

I think what we've got coming in the big reveal next Monday is, broadly speaking, primaries from March 8th, an aspiration to let secondaries back after the Easter holidays, and the woolliest language possible on everything else.

I reckon that, having been caught out not acting decisively enough earlier in the pandemic, the Government is now terrified of the potential consequences of letting us out of jail and will therefore move as slowly as it possibly can.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965

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?

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.

Leon said:

Black_Rook said:

Malmesbury said:

Black_Rook said:

Afternoon everyone.

I take it that we've all seen the news about shielding by now - in particular, the reports that all the letters to the new additions to the list are going to tell them to sit at home until March 31st?

If ever proof were required that the whole country is going to be kept under lock and key for a long time, it's that. If it's claimed to be too dangerous for the vulnerable even to leave the house then the prospect of anything whatever re-opening apart from schools is precisely zero.

I think what we've got coming in the big reveal next Monday is, broadly speaking, primaries from March 8th, an aspiration to let secondaries back after the Easter holidays, and the woolliest language possible on everything else.

I reckon that, having been caught out not acting decisively enough earlier in the pandemic, the Government is now terrified of the potential consequences of letting us out of jail and will therefore move as slowly as it possibly can.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965

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.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Or this interview of Jordan Peterson by Helen Lewis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s&t=471s

24 MILLION views.

"Hardly anyone"

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.

MattW said:

WhisperingOracle said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.

It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.

On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.

Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.

Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.

However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.

https://unherd.com/2020/06/how-out-of-touch-is-the-tory-party/?=frlh

I think you are pretty spot on there HYUFD which is why I am a liberal and not a Tory. I am completely gobsmacked how often the Tories come up with totally socialist stuff and have no idea they have done it.

Eg capping energy prices. What next carrots? The USSR would have been proud. What happened to market forces? There were other ways of protecting those being exploited.

Such policies have been enacted in continental countries that are nowhere near the USSR, ofcourse.

Where's the State interference on statues?

AIUI we now have a requirement for planning permission to remove, which is an insistence on applying democratic process.

Leaving aside that removal of statues has been a dog's breakfast of an area for decades - no defined process.

BBC even had one of their quixotic investigations by Puzzled of Radio 4 in 2020 trying to find out how to get a statue replaced by a modern one, and no one knew.

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Boris is good when he picks the right team, and the right vision.

Last year he had Cummings and Cain (crap) and an erratic vision. This year he has Allegra Stratton, Carrie Symonds, and Dan Rosenfield (superb). He also seems to have stabilised in his vision somewhat.

This is why he's looking better. If he junks Williamson, Patel and Rees-Mogg his Cabinet will be much better too. I'd also replace Raab (average) and Brandon Lewis (below average) too as NI and Foreign Policy need more oomph.

Then, he's got a strong team that will contrast v. well with Labour.

I'm not sure about dumping Patel, she seems to be doing some very smart reforms - but the rest I 100% agree.

Keep Truss where she is. She's doing more for UK Foreign Policy than the FCO/FCDO have done for decades.

Richard_Tyndall said:

eek said:

Going back to the culture wars

It seems that the Government's proposal are plagiarized from elsewhere
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1361719947156725764

Isn't plagiarizing an instant fail?

I thought the whole point of organisations like Policy Exchange is they want their ideas to be picked up and enacted by the Government. Hard to see how you could call that plagiarism?

BluestBlue said:

Gallowgate said:

Mortimer said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/01/bristol-university-students-seek-ban-terf-speakers-question/

I can't read the article as it's behind a paywall. Can you explain the details please?

Feminists like Linda Bellos and Germaine Greer (and others) have been no-platformed for holding allegedly "Terf" views

This happens often enough to be a concern. Another example:

"An Oxford University professor whose invitation to a conference celebrating women was withdrawn has defended her stance on transgender rights issues.

Selina Todd was "no-platformed" by the Oxford International Women's Festival, at which she had been due to speak"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51737206

And another:


"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36101423

You haven't given me the details.

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.

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Pfizerd up. Yay! Superb organisation. Running on rails. Hats off to all concerned.

It is a significant relief after a year, that if I keep myself safe for 3 more weeks, I can now realistically wave goodbye to Covid doing me serious harm. Or doing me in. Hope you are all in my happy position in not very long at all.

Good for you. Can I ask what PG you are in?

My older daughter's mum was vaxxed today. AZ. She's in PG6 in London

PG7

Given the rate that PG6 is expanding with all the special pleading, you did very well to get the vaccine down at 7.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/prwhittle/status/1361646369354764288?s=20

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/prwhittle/status/1361646369354764288?s=20

Anabobazina said:

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?

MattW said:

Interesting Study by S&P.

https://twitter.com/Swen_2017/status/1361655488363040771

To me the EU one looks optimistic, and the UK one somewhat pessimistic. Time will tell.

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Or this interview of Jordan Peterson by Helen Lewis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s&t=471s

24 MILLION views.

"Hardly anyone"

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 was never trying to sell him to you. I was querying StuartinRomford's assertion that "hardly anyone" clicks on his lectures, when in fact he is one of the most popular online lecturers - in the world. As can be easily demonstrated.

As for his views, I tend to agree. I'm glad he's around but I find him slightly insipid, a diluted Scruton. And I prefer the real thing: Scruton.

I ascribe his remarkable popularity to the fact there are so few giving his side of these arguments in a reasonably eloquent, not-insane way, which Peterson manages to do.

In that case, we've really been talking at cross-purposes. As someone who has experience of putting this sort of thing on, as an overkeen sixth former in the late 1980's, hardly anyone turns up. Even with a cool subject or celeb speaker, hardly anyone turns up. An audience of 100 in a University 10 thousand is 1 percent.

I almost wish I hand't mentioned JBP. If the profile in the Times a couple of weekends ago is even half true, he's not in a good way.

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/prwhittle/status/1361646369354764288?s=20

Is this supposed to be news? I'm 29 and I never covered Shakespeare in any meaningful academic capacity other than as a junior school school trip to Stratford upon Avon.

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/prwhittle/status/1361646369354764288?s=20

Is this supposed to be news? I'm 29 and I never covered Shakespeare in any meaningful academic capacity other than as a junior school school trip to Stratford upon Avon.

Which says something about the quality of your early education then, Shakespeare is one of the cornerstones of English literature and drama and nobody can properly be said to have studied the subject without covering him

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/prwhittle/status/1361646369354764288?s=20

Surprised not to see this as a chosen example

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1361370106283003907?s=21

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/prwhittle/status/1361646369354764288?s=20

Is this supposed to be news? I'm 29 and I never covered Shakespeare in any meaningful academic capacity other than as a junior school school trip to Stratford upon Avon.

I recall doing MacBeth, but being more interested in the notes on the real Macbeth than the play. My teacher, in fairness, was generally of the view that schools often pushed Shakespeare too hard, particularly with the original text, which meant for a lot of people it was something they regarded as a chore rather than something they appreciated.

We also did some godawful play about people talking in a kitchen over three different dinner parties.

Black_Rook said:

Malmesbury said:

Black_Rook said:

Afternoon everyone.

I take it that we've all seen the news about shielding by now - in particular, the reports that all the letters to the new additions to the list are going to tell them to sit at home until March 31st?

If ever proof were required that the whole country is going to be kept under lock and key for a long time, it's that. If it's claimed to be too dangerous for the vulnerable even to leave the house then the prospect of anything whatever re-opening apart from schools is precisely zero.

I think what we've got coming in the big reveal next Monday is, broadly speaking, primaries from March 8th, an aspiration to let secondaries back after the Easter holidays, and the woolliest language possible on everything else.

I reckon that, having been caught out not acting decisively enough earlier in the pandemic, the Government is now terrified of the potential consequences of letting us out of jail and will therefore move as slowly as it possibly can.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965

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?

Gallowgate said:

BluestBlue said:

Gallowgate said:

Mortimer said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

Gallowgate said:

Leon said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

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.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/01/bristol-university-students-seek-ban-terf-speakers-question/

I can't read the article as it's behind a paywall. Can you explain the details please?

Feminists like Linda Bellos and Germaine Greer (and others) have been no-platformed for holding allegedly "Terf" views

This happens often enough to be a concern. Another example:

"An Oxford University professor whose invitation to a conference celebrating women was withdrawn has defended her stance on transgender rights issues.

Selina Todd was "no-platformed" by the Oxford International Women's Festival, at which she had been due to speak"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51737206

And another:


"Feminist writer Julie Bindel was banned from speaking at Manchester University's student union last October as students said her views on transgender people could "incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36101423

You haven't given me the details.

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.

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Or this interview of Jordan Peterson by Helen Lewis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s&t=471s

24 MILLION views.

"Hardly anyone"

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 was never trying to sell him to you. I was querying StuartinRomford's assertion that "hardly anyone" clicks on his lectures, when in fact he is one of the most popular online lecturers - in the world. As can be easily demonstrated.

As for his views, I tend to agree. I'm glad he's around but I find him slightly insipid, a diluted Scruton. And I prefer the real thing: Scruton.

I ascribe his remarkable popularity to the fact there are so few giving his side of these arguments in a reasonably eloquent, not-insane way, which Peterson manages to do.

In that case, we've really been talking at cross-purposes. As someone who has experience of putting this sort of thing on, as an overkeen sixth former in the late 1980's, hardly anyone turns up. Even with a cool subject or celeb speaker, hardly anyone turns up. An audience of 100 in a University 10 thousand is 1 percent.

I almost wish I hand't mentioned JBP. If the profile in the Times a couple of weekends ago is even half true, he's not in a good way.

Yes, he's manic-depressive and has been "unwell" for some time, including a benzo-dependency

Stuartinromford said:

MattW said:

Interesting Study by S&P.

https://twitter.com/Swen_2017/status/1361655488363040771

To me the EU one looks optimistic, and the UK one somewhat pessimistic. Time will tell.

Depends a lot on the J+J vaccine. I've seen something implying that the expectation is 150 million doses by June, another 250 million by September.

That's their key one- a bit like AZ for the UK. As long as those happen, they'll be fine.

Leon said:

kle4 said:

Stuartinromford said:

MattW said:

Interesting Study by S&P.

https://twitter.com/Swen_2017/status/1361655488363040771

To me the EU one looks optimistic, and the UK one somewhat pessimistic. Time will tell.

Depends a lot on the J+J vaccine. I've seen something implying that the expectation is 150 million doses by June, another 250 million by September.

That's their key one- a bit like AZ for the UK. As long as those happen, they'll be fine.

Yes, thank goodness it does look like a winner, if it didn't pan out in trials they'd have been pretty screwed.

It also depends on J&J's efficacy against new variants; same goes for AZ

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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?

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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.