As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.
If I recall my Union rep training properly it would probably be unfair dismissal on the basis of discrimination, and you’d get a payout. But unless they were stupid they’d make you fight to prove that was the reason, and your chances of success would depend on how long you'd worked there etc.
Dismissal on the basis of political affiliation or voting would definitely be unfair dismissal. If however someone was filmed at a Tommy Robinson rally with an abusive banner that would most probably fall into a different category and the employer would be within their rights to argue the person brought the employer into disrepute.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.
As far as I understand it if it's related to the job (eg the Tory Party realises it's got Labour voters as employees) then it's unlikely to be unfair but for generic non political jobs a tribunal is unlikely to view it as a fair dismissal. If a non political business owner said at a General Election he'd fire anyone who doesn't vote Tory you really don't think the law would object to that?
Crucially the law does say that for firings due to political views the two year window where you can't sue does not apply.
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.
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
I don't disagree that this is an issue. I am just not sure what can be done about it.
To be honest the vilification of JK Rowling horrifies me.
I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.
It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.
On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.
Actually the modern Tory voter is only fractionally rightwing on economic issues and left of most Tory MPs.
Voters who switched from Labour to the Tories in 2019 are actually leftwing on economic matters and in favour of a big state.
However Conservative voters, including switchers from Labour in the Red Wall, are well to the right on social matters and authoritarian overall, in fact more authoritarian even than Tory MPs.
Modern Tory voter = populist = big state/authoritarian. It is why people like me stopped being members of the Conservative Party. It is how moderate Labour supporters must have felt when Corbyn took over.
It is a reflection of the modern right in most western nations at the moment, not just here but Trumpism in the US or Le Penism in France or Salvini in Italy, all big state/authoritarian.
Even in Germany the CDU is hardly libertarian, indeed only in Ireland and the Netherlands are the main centre right parties small state and liberal
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.
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.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.
As far as I understand it if it's related to the job (eg the Tory Party realises it's got Labour voters as employees) then it's unlikely to be unfair but for generic non political jobs a tribunal is unlikely to view it as a fair dismissal. If a non political business owner said at a General Election he'd fire anyone who doesn't vote Tory you really don't think the law would object to that?
Crucially the law does say that for firings due to political views the two year window where you can't sue does not apply.
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.
My understanding is that is the important bit. "Philosophical" beliefs are protected but "political" beliefs are not. The difference? Probably a good lawyer.
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.
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
I thought that most modern Tories believed in a small state that interfered as little as possible. I was clearly wrong - the level of support on here for state interference in issues around free speech, statues, the National Trust, curriculum content and so on from PB Tories is high.
It's not difficult. Free speech should be protected, and there are some concerns. The government is exaggerating this hugely as they think there is political capital to be made from it. In reality, it should be up to the universities themselves to ensure free speech, rather than an interfering state.
On the substance, I'm a leftie in favour of free speech, but there are limits. Tommy Robinson should not be given a platform if he is likely to use it to advocate hatred of muslims or lefties; nor should an advocate of holy war against the west be given a platform to encourage the beheading of kafirs.
If they aren't given a platform how do you challenge their ideas? This is how these ideas are allowed to fester and take hold. All of these bullshit fake news peddlers need to be challenged in public forums as often as possible.
I'm not at all in favour of banning ideas. I'm suggesting that free speech may be curtailed where speakers are advocating violence towards others, and where such violence may indeed ensue at the instigation of the speaker. The law already covers some of this. Thatcher certainly took this approach with McGuinness and Adams, I recall. Not very successfully, though.
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.
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.
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.
As far as I understand it if it's related to the job (eg the Tory Party realises it's got Labour voters as employees) then it's unlikely to be unfair but for generic non political jobs a tribunal is unlikely to view it as a fair dismissal. If a non political business owner said at a General Election he'd fire anyone who doesn't vote Tory you really don't think the law would object to that?
Crucially the law does say that for firings due to political views the two year window where you can't sue does not apply.
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
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.
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.
Just because there is dumbing down in some places doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to a better educational environment.
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.
The two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims does not apply in cases where the reason for dismissal is the employee's political beliefs or affiliation. This does not mean that such a dismissal will be automatically unfair, but simply that it may be challenged by employees who would not normally satisfy the two-year qualifying period for such claims.
After the Govt lost to the BNP member before the ECHR they had a choice of amending discrimination law or altering unfair dismissal law - and did the later. Because political affiliation is not one of the fair reasons to be able to dismiss someone then it is likely to be an unfair dismissal but if there is a complete breakdown in workplace relations as a result of a political row then a fair dismissal could be effected under the "some other substantial reason" head. I can think of a few other circs under which it would be a fair dismissal but it would be difficult.
Employment law is a reserved matter and the Scottish tribunal decsion on a belief in independence is a "religious or similar philosophical belief" is persuasive elsewhere in the UK . There's a similar precedent in England Olivier v Department of Work and Pensions a Labour councillor was allowed to proceed with a religion or belief discrimination claim. While mere support of the Labour Party was not enough to warrant protection, his political belief in 'democratic socialism' was a philosophical belief. Similarly support for the SNP wouldn't warrrant protection, a sincerely held belief in Scottish independence mght.
I would disagree there. Seeing a country implement a policy that proves highly sucessful I would absolutely hope we might say maybe we should copy that. Not saying this proposal falls into that category necessarily
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.
Just because there is dumbing down in some places doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to a better educational environment.
Well yeah, but my point is that this isn't going to change anything on that front and it's naive to think it will.
This is Government culture war-ism and nothing else.
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
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.
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.
Yes I was exaggerating for effect and it is not unreasonable in a Social Democracy being fundamental to a basic standard of life.
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.
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
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.
The two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims does not apply in cases where the reason for dismissal is the employee's political beliefs or affiliation. This does not mean that such a dismissal will be automatically unfair, but simply that it may be challenged by employees who would not normally satisfy the two-year qualifying period for such claims.
After the Govt lost to the BNP member before the ECHR they had a choice of amending discrimination law or altering unfair dismissal law - and did the later. Because political affiliation is not one of the fair reasons to be able to dismiss someone then it is likely to be an unfair dismissal but if there is a complete breakdown in workplace relations as a result of a political row then a fair dismissal could be effected under the "some other substantial reason" head. I can think of a few other circs under which it would be a fair dismissal but it would be difficult.
Employment law is a reserved matter and the Scottish tribunal decsion on a belief in independence is a "religious or similar philosophical belief" is persuasive elsewhere in the UK . There's a similar precedent in England Olivier v Department of Work and Pensions a Labour councillor was allowed to proceed with a religion or belief discrimination claim. While mere support of the Labour Party was not enough to warrant protection, his political belief in 'democratic socialism' was a philosophical belief. Similarly support for the SNP wouldn't warrrant protection, a sincerely held belief in Scottish independence mght.
"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"
I mean, go ahead, knock yourself out, claim that is "hardly anybody". It is simply ridiculous
Two points:
First, my original point was exactly that; ""Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet." So JBP can hardly say that his freedom of speech has been curtailed, can he? And any student at Cambridge, Rummidge or the University of Life can tune in whenever they like. Splendid. Standing up in front of a few dozen undergraduates at a meeting of the Reform Society of St Madeup's College, Oxbridge is an utter irrelevance
Second, if you want to compare Youtube clicks, consider this. "Surprising My Dog With 1,000,000 Pieces of Dog Food" has got 9 million views. "WW1- Oversimplified" has got 27 million views. "Inside Robert Downey Jr.’s Windmill Home in the Hamptons" has got 21 million views. "42 HOLY GRAIL HACKS THAT WILL SAVE YOU A FORTUNE" has got 281 million views. "Water Bottle Flip 2 | Dude Perfect" has got 361 million views.
"Public intellectual most viewed on Youtube" is like "Most popular Schoenberg composition". Technically there is one, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not a thing that the vast majority of people are interested in.
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.
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
Well as we know, zero-Woke isn't a sensible policy so instead of continuous lockdowns to protect ourselves from Woke we should simply go for herd immunity.
(CNN) Breaking: Former President Donald Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani are being accused of conspiring with the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to incite the January 6 insurrection in a civil lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court by the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee that cites a post-Civil War law designed to combat violence and intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan.
The lawsuit, filed by Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson in his personal capacity, is the first civil action filed against the former President related to the attack at the US Capitol and comes days after the Senate acquitted Trump in his impeachment trial.
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
As one of the few people here who's actually at university, I can tell you for a fact that nobody is interested in who comes or doesn't come to the student union unless they are a top 40 DJ or band or free booze is on offer.
It is literally the realm of weirdos and obsessives. I'm obsessed with politics and even I don't bother with this rubbish now and when I was an undergraduate.
If you genuinely don't care then you surely don't object to those who do care getting involved?
Because you're the one that is supporting the view that valuable legislative time to be used for something that is literally not an issue.
This is not about "free speech". This is about 35+ year olds getting angry because the man they "support" isn't invited to speak at the university they attended 15 year ago. Something must be done you're so oppressed!
It's pathetic. Why not actually focus on improving people's lives rather than this culture war nonsense. You are just as bad as the no platformers.
Parliament and the Government are capable of multitasking.
If the Health Secretary is getting involved with this it would be weird. If the Universities Minister or equivalent is then its part of his portfolio.
But they really should be dealing with more pressing university matters.
Except that would mean looking at real problems so they go for the culture war instead as its less awkward and embarrassing then trying to work out how a university offers the practical elements of a degree that they've failed to provide but are contractually obliged to fulfil.
There's only a "culture war" if two sides are fighting.
So who is opposed to freedom of speech? They are the ones you should turn your fire upon, not those in favour of it.
'freedom of speech' won't be including Anjem Choudhry or Nick Griffin though, will it? and probably rightly so.
What the government is doing is obliging universities to accept a range of views ministers themselves find acceptable.
You do realise we're not talking about national politics or the national media.
We're talking about maybe 100-200 hardcore politics obsessives out of 40,000 in a particular city. The 39,800 do not believe their freedom of speech is constrained in the slightest. They are just getting on with being students.
You're suggesting that Parliament should get involved in something that affects literally nobody.
It's like you suggesting Parliament should get involved in banning teachers from telling kids off for insulting each other in the name of free speech.
This isn't a free speech issue. It's nothing.
Of course it’s a free speech issue.
One side is in favour of freedom of speech.
The other side is in favour of cancellations, boycotts, and protests about speakers.
Which side are you on?
Cancellations are something entirely different, but isn't a protest just another form of free speech?
One's allowed to protest about someone else's speech, just as they're allowed to complain about you protesting about their speech. (Repeat ad nauseum.)
Yes, no issue with protests. The problem is that the universities simply give in to the minority of agitators and cancel the bookings. This forces them into a position where they are unable to do so.
The main issue is that universities are where students are supposed to learn and think about life for themselves, not have it spoonfed to them. How can you do that when the university and union is shutting down debates or only allowing one side to present a view.
One of the best things about debating and learning is that you get demolish the arguments of those who you disagree with, I'd love to debate race with someone like Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson and completely destroy everything they're talking about. Allowing them to spout off unchallenged because he's not given a platform is counterproductive and ultimately self-defeating becuase their abhorrent views are still seen and heard by millions but now they simply go unchallenged.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I agree that Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time was a great example of such a thing.
But having a law, specifically targeted at universities, in the name of "stopping the lefty cancel-culture scourge" is simply culture war ramping.
Since when was having a law to defend the freedom and equal treatment of minorities "ramping"?
I don't believe "political views" are a protected class of "minorities" in any legislation ever.
So why are you changing the definition? You're a big fan of consistency after all.
Actually I think they are. If I as an employer fired someone as they told me they were voting for Starmer that would be illegal.
I actually don't think that is the case? @DougSeal may be able to help us out here.
As far as I understand it if it's related to the job (eg the Tory Party realises it's got Labour voters as employees) then it's unlikely to be unfair but for generic non political jobs a tribunal is unlikely to view it as a fair dismissal. If a non political business owner said at a General Election he'd fire anyone who doesn't vote Tory you really don't think the law would object to that?
Crucially the law does say that for firings due to political views the two year window where you can't sue does not apply.
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
PS. Just noticed Philip's comment on the "two year window". I assume he means the first two years of employment (used to be one year) where the employer can dismiss someone without reason. If dismissal can be proven to be as a likely result of someone's belonging to what are now generally regarded as "protected groups" (race, gender sexuality, religion etc. etc) then that would be classified as unfair dismissal whether on day one of employment or after many years service, and is subject to unlimited damages.
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.
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
Wow. Storming through the numbers in Devon. I expect mine in March. Can't fecking wait.
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.
They have been blitzing the crumblies down here in Devon.
Amusingly, the car park is strewn with black and yellow tape and broken wooden parking dividers. An enquiring glance elicited the response "the eighty and ninety years olds have been driving themselves here...."
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?
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.
Unless Newcastle University is extremely different from the University of Nottingham - and unless it has dramatically changed in the past twenty years - then the amount who get involved in talks probably number in the thousands not hundreds.
You're speaking as if only the Debating Society is affected by this, its not. In my day I spent a year as Treasurer of the Student Union Societies committee. I'm going from memory but there were I believe over 150 Societies in the SU not one or two that I interacted with - and that's excluding the drinking societies which were entirely self-funded and had no grants from the Student Union.
In any individual week there could be dozens of Societies from across campus having guest speakers, not just the Debate Society but any of the educational ones (eg I was a member of the Economics Society), religious, philosophical and other Societies and plenty of others that would put on guest speakers.
There might be 100-200 in the audience in any particular event but there would be dozens of events across campus each week.
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
Wow. Storming through the numbers in Devon. I expect mine in March. Can't fecking wait.
Of course, it could just be they are working through the Conservative Party membership list first....
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
They have been blitzing the crumblies down here in Devon.
Amusingly, the car park is strewn with black and yellow tape and broken wooden parking dividers. An enquiring glance elicited the response "the eighty and ninety years olds have been driving themselves here...."
I am 55 and had a call this morning to tell me I am booked in for my first jab in a week. I must admit I was surprised as I had worked out it would be at least early April before I was summoned.
I have had a few very minor ailments but none of them on the lists that are circulating and currently I think I am in reasonable health although somewhat overweight.
Not ungrateful at all at being jabbed so soon but still somewhat pleasantly surprised.
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.
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
I don't think it is "Ed Davey's Libdems". It's Ed Davey perched atop a roiling heap of disagreement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
I don't think it is "Ed Davey's Libdems". It's Ed Davey perched atop a roiling heap of disagreement.
If Ed Davey really represented the Lib Dems - and if HYUFD represented the Tories - then I'd 100% vote Lib Dem.
Regrettably for the first and thankfully for the latter neither are true IMO.
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.
To channel South Park, the British public are saying the choice is between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche, and right now the Turd Sandwich has crept ahead again.
A plurality can't decide which of a Turd Sandwich or a Giant Douche is better at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it may be one of these typically haphazard British areas where in the absence of it being a publicised or contested area previously, nothing has been written down.
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.
Yes, keep Patel. She's growing into the role, unafraid to be unpopular. Vital in her job.
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 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?
Particularly if, as Dunt's tweet says, they referenced the PE paper.
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.
Therese Coffey is an unsung hero at DWP too.
Where does the former Trade Promotion work of the DTI sit now? We need oodles of that.
As an interesting titbit, Scottish Seafood Exports to Japan jumped by 340% between 2017 and 2019.
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.
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.
Do you have a specific worry on the size of PG6 ? Getting so large the Gov't can go hang remaining U-50s :E ?
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.
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.
This is the 30-year old, real origin of the term political correctness, well before the woke battles. It originates in literature teaching, nothing else.
This is not generally the approach followed by even the most leftwing British schoolteachers, but you wouldn't know it from the Mail's headline. The Mail just refers to "schools", and the fact that it's treating American schools as effectively interchangeable with ours, just as some of the less sensible elements of the left have copied a "defunding the police" slogan wholesale from an American urban context in which police have regularly patrolled in military-style armoured vehicles, tells you everything about some of our culturally derivative problems.
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.
lol. I've been hard at work. I come on here to find that you lot have been banging on about this for hours, especially YOU
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.
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.
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
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.
An audience of 100 in a University of 10k is 1%
An audience of 100 across a dozen different Societies simultaneously being held is over 10%.
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
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.
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
I thought we were all about teaching kids practical skills?
For what it is worth I like Shakespeare but he certainly wasn't the focus of my English Literature education.
We spent most of our time discussing An Inspector Calls and the Lord of the Flies.
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.
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
Yes, but the point was they have a lot of that one coming, so as long as it is passably effective on new variants, given its one dose suitability they will be able to ensure some level of protection for vast numbers of people.
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.
I remember watching the Leonardo DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet once, perhaps in Year 8.
I just remember fancying the pants off Claire Danes...
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.
An audience of 100 in a University of 10k is 1%
An audience of 100 across a dozen different Societies simultaneously being held is over 10%.
And what proportion of those meetings are remotely controversial?
Some meetings of some religious societies- though if the CU want to cut up rough, they just decamp to a convenient church.
Some meetings of some political societies- though not many. And the Brexit Society are probably happier meeting in the bar of the Ferret and Farage anyway.
This issue really isn't an issue for most students. Especially in a world where you can do what you like online.
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?
That sounds like the worst of both worlds for me then. From experience trying to teach a class when they are at school and I am shielding is not at all fun for anyone. Still, they would be getting most of their lessons in school which is much better than nothing.
That is assuming secondary schools are going back rather than just primaries of course.
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
I thought we were all about teaching kids practical skills?
For what it is worth I like Shakespeare but he certainly wasn't the focus of my English Literature education.
We spent most of our time discussing An Inspector Calls and the Lord of the Flies.
Studied Shakespeare myself, but Lord of the Flies and George Orwell were by far the best elements of my English Literature as far as I was concerned.
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.
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?
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
I'll listen to that later. Quite a fan of HL, who is many things but not "fluffy".
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
An audience of 100 in a University of 10k is 1%
An audience of 100 across a dozen different Societies simultaneously being held is over 10%.
And what proportion of those meetings are remotely controversial?
Some meetings of some religious societies- though if the CU want to cut up rough, they just decamp to a convenient church.
Some meetings of some political societies- though not many. And the Brexit Society are probably happier meeting in the bar of the Ferret and Farage anyway.
This issue really isn't an issue for most students. Especially in a world where you can do what you like online.
How many are remotely controversial depends upon where the line is drawn surely? But there'd be more than just one society open to potential controversy.
As I said in my time there were 150 non-drinking Societies at my University and at least a dozen of them would have been open to what could have been termed controversial speakers. Our SU in my time was one of the only ones to explicitly reject the policy of No Platform and when I went to NUS Conference we voted against it for the NUS but were almost 100% outvoted.
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.
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.
Hypothetically if Rebecca Long Bailey decided to come out and embrace antisemitism, promote it etc I think she should be invited onto Question Time and challenged on her views. If the Labour Party wish to disassociate themselves from her as a result that would be their choice but if that is her beliefs she should be given a platform to expose that.
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.
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?
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..
Handy to know some people of colour fall into categories of white identity.
Needless to say, I don't agree. It would be utterly absurd for me to be even a micron less joyful in life because somebody I've never met thinks I should share their dissatisfaction. I wish them well in getting happy, but I'm not going to reinforce their problem by adding my attention to it, so we can all have a party together about how awful we all are, and how really really awful those other people are.
The greatest imaginable disservice that this horseshit can do is done to those people who actually didn't think they were victims in life before they started consuming it, but then pick up all this toxic baggage.
Comments
To be honest the vilification of JK Rowling horrifies me.
Even in Germany the CDU is hardly libertarian, indeed only in Ireland and the Netherlands are the main centre right parties small state and liberal
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.
I know very little about this area to be honest.
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.
It seems that the Government's proposal are plagiarized from elsewhere
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1361719947156725764
Isn't plagiarizing an instant fail?
After the Govt lost to the BNP member before the ECHR they had a choice of amending discrimination law or altering unfair dismissal law - and did the later. Because political affiliation is not one of the fair reasons to be able to dismiss someone then it is likely to be an unfair dismissal but if there is a complete breakdown in workplace relations as a result of a political row then a fair dismissal could be effected under the "some other substantial reason" head. I can think of a few other circs under which it would be a fair dismissal but it would be difficult.
Employment law is a reserved matter and the Scottish tribunal decsion on a belief in independence is a "religious or similar philosophical belief" is persuasive elsewhere in the UK . There's a similar precedent in England Olivier v Department of Work and Pensions a Labour councillor was allowed to proceed with a religion or belief discrimination claim. While mere support of the Labour Party was not enough to warrant protection, his political belief in 'democratic socialism' was a philosophical belief. Similarly support for the SNP wouldn't warrrant protection, a sincerely held belief in Scottish independence mght.
This is Government culture war-ism and nothing else.
My older daughter's mum was vaxxed today. AZ. She's in PG6 in London
First, my original point was exactly that; ""Anyone who wants to hear the thoughts of (say) Jordan B. Peterson can easily do so with a couple of clicks on the internet." So JBP can hardly say that his freedom of speech has been curtailed, can he? And any student at Cambridge, Rummidge or the University of Life can tune in whenever they like. Splendid. Standing up in front of a few dozen undergraduates at a meeting of the Reform Society of St Madeup's College, Oxbridge is an utter irrelevance
Second, if you want to compare Youtube clicks, consider this.
"Surprising My Dog With 1,000,000 Pieces of Dog Food" has got 9 million views.
"WW1- Oversimplified" has got 27 million views.
"Inside Robert Downey Jr.’s Windmill Home in the Hamptons" has got 21 million views.
"42 HOLY GRAIL HACKS THAT WILL SAVE YOU A FORTUNE" has got 281 million views.
"Water Bottle Flip 2 | Dude Perfect" has got 361 million views.
"Public intellectual most viewed on Youtube" is like "Most popular Schoenberg composition". Technically there is one, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not a thing that the vast majority of people are interested in.
The lawsuit, filed by Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson in his personal capacity, is the first civil action filed against the former President related to the attack at the US Capitol and comes days after the Senate acquitted Trump in his impeachment trial.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56075528
The difference? Probably a good lawyer.
I know very little about this area to be honest.
Dixiedean:
Divven sell yoursel short canny lad.
Hopefully I'd still be able to collect my bill though...
Amusingly, the car park is strewn with black and yellow tape and broken wooden parking dividers. An enquiring glance elicited the response "the eighty and ninety years olds have been driving themselves here...."
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?
You're speaking as if only the Debating Society is affected by this, its not. In my day I spent a year as Treasurer of the Student Union Societies committee. I'm going from memory but there were I believe over 150 Societies in the SU not one or two that I interacted with - and that's excluding the drinking societies which were entirely self-funded and had no grants from the Student Union.
In any individual week there could be dozens of Societies from across campus having guest speakers, not just the Debate Society but any of the educational ones (eg I was a member of the Economics Society), religious, philosophical and other Societies and plenty of others that would put on guest speakers.
There might be 100-200 in the audience in any particular event but there would be dozens of events across campus each week.
😉
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.
I have had a few very minor ailments but none of them on the lists that are circulating and currently I think I am in reasonable health although somewhat overweight.
Not ungrateful at all at being jabbed so soon but still somewhat pleasantly surprised.
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.
Keep Truss where she is. She's doing more for UK Foreign Policy than the FCO/FCDO have done for decades.
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 will be quite amusing when student Islamic societies inviting hate preachers are being protected by government decree.
Regrettably for the first and thankfully for the latter neither are true IMO.
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.
To channel South Park, the British public are saying the choice is between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche, and right now the Turd Sandwich has crept ahead again.
A plurality can't decide which of a Turd Sandwich or a Giant Douche is better at all.
One might almost suggest that in conversations and interviews he is tailoring his comments to the intellectual level of the person doing the questioning.
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.
https://twitter.com/Swen_2017/status/1361655488363040771
To me the EU one looks optimistic, and the UK one somewhat pessimistic. Time will tell.
As an interesting titbit, Scottish Seafood Exports to Japan jumped by 340% between 2017 and 2019.
https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2019/08/19/Scottish-seafood-exports-to-Japan-up-340
However your unsurprising snobbery is noted.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1361352223888994307
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.
This is not generally the approach followed by even the most leftwing British schoolteachers, but you wouldn't know it from the Mail's headline. The Mail just refers to "schools", and the fact that it's treating American schools as effectively interchangeable with ours, just as some of the less sensible elements of the left have copied a "defunding the police" slogan wholesale from an American urban context in which police have regularly patrolled in military-style armoured vehicles, tells you everything about some of our culturally derivative problems.
You're not a stupid man. You can see the difference. Free speech does not include the freedom to incite violence.
That's their key one- a bit like AZ for the UK. As long as those happen, they'll be fine.
An audience of 100 across a dozen different Societies simultaneously being held is over 10%.
We also did some godawful play about people talking in a kitchen over three different dinner parties.
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.
For what it is worth I like Shakespeare but he certainly wasn't the focus of my English Literature education.
We spent most of our time discussing An Inspector Calls and the Lord of the Flies.
I just remember fancying the pants off Claire Danes...
Some meetings of some religious societies- though if the CU want to cut up rough, they just decamp to a convenient church.
Some meetings of some political societies- though not many. And the Brexit Society are probably happier meeting in the bar of the Ferret and Farage anyway.
This issue really isn't an issue for most students. Especially in a world where you can do what you like online.
Still, they would be getting most of their lessons in school which is much better than nothing.
That is assuming secondary schools are going back rather than just primaries of course.
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?
The S&P study seems to assume no acceleration in the UK program and a very considerable acceleration in the EU one.
Handy to know some people of colour fall into categories of white identity.
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.
As I said in my time there were 150 non-drinking Societies at my University and at least a dozen of them would have been open to what could have been termed controversial speakers. Our SU in my time was one of the only ones to explicitly reject the policy of No Platform and when I went to NUS Conference we voted against it for the NUS but were almost 100% outvoted.
Push the debate underground and their bile goes unchallenged.
"Defund the Police" is one such concept.
The greatest imaginable disservice that this horseshit can do is done to those people who actually didn't think they were victims in life before they started consuming it, but then pick up all this toxic baggage.
And that's really enough on this for one day.