Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.
Fining universities for not inviting speakers they choose not to invite is limiting free speech. The idea that there should be a govt imposed standard of who should be invited to speak in your home or university is more Communist than Conservative.
Of course Jo Johnson knows this and is only looking for a headline and a more positive impression from people such as yourself.
Wrong. Taxpayers heavily fund the universities and he who pays the piper has a say. Unless you want them to fully independent and rely on the market to fund their courses. Perfectly feasible but you may not like what you get.
But it's not the universities who 'no-platform' speakers, but student groups. As I understand it, the NUS has a list of a few hate groups - including the BNP and Al-Muhajiroon - who are automatically banned, and who most would think sensibly are, after that, it's down to local unions and groups to decide who they do and don't want speaking. That can lead to daft decisions - student politics being what it is - but Johnson's intervention is likely to create problems for the simple reason that it just codifies an insoluble problem - while most agree that some speakers and groups are beyond the pale and need to be kept off campus, there's a vast grey area. I believe Johnson's plan still allows for the banning of speakers engaged in discriminatory hate speech. Now, that can be loosely applied - which may allow hate groups to slip through the net by rebranding, or strictly, meaning unions could use it to bar speakers accused of, say, transphobia, where campaigners are already seeking to codify dissent as hate speech.
It's a necessarily messy area, and probably best dealt with by students themselves - there's already a fairly strong backlash against the most bonkers stuff - and if students are unhappy with their union's political leanings, they are free to set up alternative parallel structures or meetings - NUS groups can't enforce policies beyond their jurisdiction.
Hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas Day whether alone or with their family or with their loved ones (delete as appropriate).
The Jo Johnson comments do nothing other than to re-enforce the dilemma. Forcing "free speech" on people seems on the face of it absurdly illiberal. You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.
That said, I do agree that it's worrying institutions whose primary purpose is educational should seem so concerned to diminish the plurality of opinions made and voices heard. People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
That being said, there's no harm in having your conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions challenged - living inside your own echo chamber may be reassuring and comfortable but it's not a formative experience. It cuts both ways and those coming to speak must be prepared themselves to be challenged, questioned and face hostile argument.
Hate is successfully challenged, not by violence or fear but by argument and reason. When confronted by the reality of the bankruptcy of their arguments, those peddling such views tend to scuttle away into the darkness.
I'd still prefer Government not to get involved and allow Universities and Student Unions to take their own decisions - I would always encourage plurality of debate and diversity of opinions (we could do with more of it on here sometimes) but that has to exist within the framework of the law of the land and cannot include violence or intimidation on either side.
The best thing we as a society did to tackle the BNP was to have Nick Griffin on Question Time. That evening was the beginning of the end for his party.
I know this now gets trotted out as an article of faith, but why did a Griffin-led BNP get its best ever result in a GE 7 months later?
Repeated appearances on QT (the most ever for one individual?) by Farage and associated fruitcakes didn't do him any harm. It's only the impending prospect of his heart's desire that seems to have done that.
I don’t think QT is so popular to have a major causal effect on a GE. UKIP’s rise surely took some BNP votes with it.
I think the rise of an alternative anti immigrant, anti-EU, hard right party had much more to do with the demise of Griffin/the BNP than any 'disinfectant of sunlight' stuff (not to mention the eternally fissiparous nature of the NF/BNP itself).
Hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas Day whether alone or with their family or with their loved ones (delete as appropriate).
The Jo Johnson comments do nothing other than to re-enforce the dilemma. Forcing "free speech" on people seems on the face of it absurdly illiberal. You can't make people or organisations tolerant by legislation.
That said, I do agree that it's worrying institutions whose primary purpose is educational should seem so concerned to diminish the plurality of opinions made and voices heard. People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
That being said, there's no harm in having your conceptions, preconceptions and misconceptions challenged - living inside your own echo chamber may be reassuring and comfortable but it's not a formative experience. It cuts both ways and those coming to speak must be prepared themselves to be challenged, questioned and face hostile argument.
Hate is successfully challenged, not by violence or fear but by argument and reason. When confronted by the reality of the bankruptcy of their arguments, those peddling such views tend to scuttle away into the darkness.
I'd still prefer Government not to get involved and allow Universities and Student Unions to take their own decisions - I would always encourage plurality of debate and diversity of opinions (we could do with more of it on here sometimes) but that has to exist within the framework of the law of the land and cannot include violence or intimidation on either side.
The best thing we as a society did to tackle the BNP was to have Nick Griffin on Question Time. That evening was the beginning of the end for his party.
I know this now gets trotted out as an article of faith, but why did a Griffin-led BNP get its best ever result in a GE 7 months later?
Repeated appearances on QT (the most ever for one individual?) by Farage and associated fruitcakes didn't do him any harm. It's only the impending prospect of his heart's desire that seems to have done that.
Because they were declining from their high point in the Euros where they got two MEPs elected. They were definitely already on a downward path.
Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.
Fining universities for not inviting speakers they choose not to invite is limiting free speech. The idea that there should be a govt imposed standard of who should be invited to speak in your home or university is more Communist than Conservative.
Of course Jo Johnson knows this and is only looking for a headline and a more positive impression from people such as yourself.
Wrong. Taxpayers heavily fund the universities and he who pays the piper has a say. Unless you want them to fully independent and rely on the market to fund their courses. Perfectly feasible but you may not like what you get.
But it's not the universities who 'no-platform' speakers, but student groups. As I understand it, the NUS has a list of a few hate groups - including the BNP and Al-Muhajiroon - who are automatically banned, and who most would think sensibly are, after that, it's down to local unions and groups to decide who they do and don't want speaking. That can lead to daft decisions - student politics being what it is - but Johnson's intervention is likely to create problems for the simple reason that it just codifies an insoluble problem - while most agree that some speakers and groups are beyond the pale and need to be kept off campus, there's a vast grey area. I believe Johnson's plan still allows for the banning of speakers engaged in discriminatory hate speech. Now, that can be loosely applied - which may allow hate groups to slip through the net by rebranding, or strictly, meaning unions could use it to bar speakers accused of, say, transphobia, where campaigners are already seeking to codify dissent as hate speech.
It's a necessarily messy area, and probably best dealt with by students themselves - there's already a fairly strong backlash against the most bonkers stuff - and if students are unhappy with their union's political leanings, they are free to set up alternative parallel structures or meetings - NUS groups can't enforce policies beyond their jurisdiction.
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.
Fining universities for not inviting speakers they choose not to invite is limiting free speech. The idea that there should be a govt imposed standard of who should be invited to speak in your home or university is more Communist than Conservative.
Of course Jo Johnson knows this and is only looking for a headline and a more positive impression from people such as yourself.
Wrong. Taxpayers heavily fund the universities and he who pays the piper has a say. Unless you want them to fully independent and rely on the market to fund their courses. Perfectly feasible but you may not like what you get.
But it's not the universities who 'no-platform' speakers, but student groups. As I understand it, the NUS has a list of a few hate groups - including the BNP and Al-Muhajiroon - who are automatically banned, and who most would think sensibly are, after that, it's down to local unions and groups to decide who they do and don't want speaking. That can lead to daft decisions - student politics being what it is - but Johnson's intervention is likely to create problems for the simple reason that it just codifies an insoluble problem - while most agree that some speakers and groups are beyond the pale and need to be kept off campus, there's a vast grey area. I believe Johnson's plan still allows for the banning of speakers engaged in discriminatory hate speech. Now, that can be loosely applied - which may allow hate groups to slip through the net by rebranding, or strictly, meaning unions could use it to bar speakers accused of, say, transphobia, where campaigners are already seeking to codify dissent as hate speech.
It's a necessarily messy area, and probably best dealt with by students themselves - there's already a fairly strong backlash against the most bonkers stuff - and if students are unhappy with their union's political leanings, they are free to set up alternative parallel structures or meetings - NUS groups can't enforce policies beyond their jurisdiction.
University student unions can disaffiliate from the NUS if they wish - I vaguely recall my student union doing this.
Glasgae-Celtic are looking to off-load Dembele for £18-million this January. To the premiership giants that are Brighton & Hove Albion.
It is a sad state of affairs when the mighty Scots are reduced to a feeder-club for a local hockey-club. So the question is: Which English league would you place the biggest Scots clubs?
Broad with a Duke ball in his hand in seaming conditions can be completely unplayable and formidable but in Australia he looks seriously unthreatening. Woakes has also been seriously disappointing and Curran looks more of the same. Our bowlers need a range of new tricks which they don't need to learn in this country. Anderson manages because he has additional skills although he is nothing like what he is in this country. At the moment getting 20 Australian wickets for any price in a single test match looks beyond us.
I wonder if we should be encouraging our younger bowlers to play with the kookaburra cricket ball so they need to try different things.
Can't we have a separate University for Snowflakes? Only prescribed subjects will be taught. Sociology and feminist theory, for example, and even here no rough people like that Germaine Greer will be allowed to come and frighten the students.
I find the whole things amusing. Oh, and no one is allowed to die either cos that's bad.
Glasgae-Celtic are looking to off-load Dembele for £18-million this January. To the premiership giants that are Brighton & Hove Albion.
It is a sad state of affairs when the mighty Scots are reduced to a feeder-club for a local hockey-club. So the question is: Which English league would you place the biggest Scots clubs?
In 2015/16 Brighton made a loss of £23m on turnover of £24.6 m (seriously) trying to force their way into the Premier League and they failed. Goodness knows what they lost the next season but it was probably a good investment.
Celtic in the same season had a profit of £6m and a turnover of £90m, mainly because of the money made in the Champions League. Strip that out (since they wouldn't qualify in England) and they probably have the turnover of a Championship team with more potential upside given their support. After a period of adjustment I think they could win promotion to the EPL and do reasonably well there once they had the riches of the Sky and BT contracts to feed on. At the moment in Scotland Celtic are the only game in town and I don't see any other club that could hope to survive in the Championship let alone win promotion.
Can't we have a separate University for Snowflakes? Only prescribed subjects will be taught. Sociology and feminist theory, for example, and even here no rough people like that Germaine Greer will be allowed to come and frighten the students.
I find the whole things amusing. Oh, and no one is allowed to die either cos that's bad.
I’m glad it gives you a chuckle. You haven’t really understood the issue though.
Can't we have a separate University for Snowflakes? Only prescribed subjects will be taught. Sociology and feminist theory, for example, and even here no rough people like that Germaine Greer will be allowed to come and frighten the students.
I find the whole things amusing. Oh, and no one is allowed to die either cos that's bad.
When they are no platforming Peter Tatchell you know it's time this was challenged. Weak universities unwilling to take on extreme left student unions.
You do wonder what sort of people our universities are going to be churning out and what the future of the U.K will be like if their ilk and their Marxist dogma end up running the country. Some sort of 1984esque nightmare where only approved thought speech is allowed.
The best way to challenge speech you disagree with is to debate it.
Mr. Max, that's true. I wish we had a First Amendment style law.
Which would have allowed the Al Quds march that seems to vex you so much.
There are of course plenty of snowflakes on the right - they are the ones who get very upset when people wear medals they havent won or the wrong kind of hate groups march or a jazz club takes a position on Brexit they don’t like.
Broad with a Duke ball in his hand in seaming conditions can be completely unplayable and formidable but in Australia he looks seriously unthreatening. Woakes has also been seriously disappointing and Curran looks more of the same. Our bowlers need a range of new tricks which they don't need to learn in this country. Anderson manages because he has additional skills although he is nothing like what he is in this country. At the moment getting 20 Australian wickets for any price in a single test match looks beyond us.
I wonder if we should be encouraging our younger bowlers to play with the kookaburra cricket ball so they need to try different things.
Glasgae-Celtic are looking to off-load Dembele for £18-million this January. To the premiership giants that are Brighton & Hove Albion.
It is a sad state of affairs when the mighty Scots are reduced to a feeder-club for a local hockey-club. So the question is: Which English league would you place the biggest Scots clubs?
In 2015/16 Brighton made a loss of £23m on turnover of £24.6 m (seriously) trying to force their way into the Premier League and they failed. Goodness knows what they lost the next season but it was probably a good investment.
Celtic in the same season had a profit of £6m and a turnover of £90m, mainly because of the money made in the Champions League. Strip that out (since they wouldn't qualify in England) and they probably have the turnover of a Championship team with more potential upside given their support. After a period of adjustment I think they could win promotion to the EPL and do reasonably well there once they had the riches of the Sky and BT contracts to feed on. At the moment in Scotland Celtic are the only game in town and I don't see any other club that could hope to survive in the Championship let alone win promotion.
Do they still play soccer in Scotland? I can't see it listed for the 2018 World Cup?
Can't we have a separate University for Snowflakes? Only prescribed subjects will be taught. Sociology and feminist theory, for example, and even here no rough people like that Germaine Greer will be allowed to come and frighten the students.
I find the whole things amusing. Oh, and no one is allowed to die either cos that's bad.
When they are no platforming Peter Tatchell you know it's time this was challenged.
You do wonder what sort of people our universities are going to be churning out and what the future of the U.K will be like if their ilk and their Marxist dogma end up running the country. Some sort of 1984esque nightmare where only approved thought speech is allowed.
The best way to challenge speech you disagree with is to debate it.
Maybe we were a particularly apathetic lot but when I was at University significantly less than 1% of the student body had any interest in debating anything. We had far more interesting things to do like drink, make friends, have sex and, in desperation, study. The students who actually took an interest in who was speaking at the Union seemed positively weird and had no influence on the rest of us at all.
I find it hard to believe things have changed that much.
Can't we have a separate University for Snowflakes? Only prescribed subjects will be taught. Sociology and feminist theory, for example, and even here no rough people like that Germaine Greer will be allowed to come and frighten the students.
I find the whole things amusing. Oh, and no one is allowed to die either cos that's bad.
When they are no platforming Peter Tatchell you know it's time this was challenged. Weak universities unwilling to take on extreme left student unions.
You do wonder what sort of people our universities are going to be churning out and what the future of the U.K will be like if their ilk and their Marxist dogma end up running the country. Some sort of 1984esque nightmare where only approved thought speech is allowed.
The best way to challenge speech you disagree with is to debate it.
It was moronic for that individual to refuse to share a stage with Peter Tatchell. But it’s absolutely her right to do so.
The history of Smarties has been rewritten by the BBC to have all the major decisions taken by Nestles decades before they bought Rowntrees in 1998-ish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42244389
Not to mention that Smarties is not a stocking staple outside the writer's home and the article never answers the question of where the name came from.
Broad with a Duke ball in his hand in seaming conditions can be completely unplayable and formidable but in Australia he looks seriously unthreatening. Woakes has also been seriously disappointing and Curran looks more of the same. Our bowlers need a range of new tricks which they don't need to learn in this country. Anderson manages because he has additional skills although he is nothing like what he is in this country. At the moment getting 20 Australian wickets for any price in a single test match looks beyond us.
I wonder if we should be encouraging our younger bowlers to play with the kookaburra cricket ball so they need to try different things.
Glasgae-Celtic are looking to off-load Dembele for £18-million this January. To the premiership giants that are Brighton & Hove Albion.
It is a sad state of affairs when the mighty Scots are reduced to a feeder-club for a local hockey-club. So the question is: Which English league would you place the biggest Scots clubs?
In 2015/16 Brighton made a loss of £23m on turnover of £24.6 m (seriously) trying to force their way into the Premier League and they failed. Goodness knows what they lost the next season but it was probably a good investment.
Celtic in the same season had a profit of £6m and a turnover of £90m, mainly because of the money made in the Champions League. Strip that out (since they wouldn't qualify in England) and they probably have the turnover of a Championship team with more potential upside given their support. After a period of adjustment I think they could win promotion to the EPL and do reasonably well there once they had the riches of the Sky and BT contracts to feed on. At the moment in Scotland Celtic are the only game in town and I don't see any other club that could hope to survive in the Championship let alone win promotion.
Do they still play soccer in Scotland? I can't see it listed for the 2018 World Cup?
We do Mike but not as you would know it. The problem is that thanks to Sky we know its a bit of a joke too. The days when the mighty Dundee United were beating Barcelona home and away in the EUFA Cup seem a long, long way away.
Those who wax lyrical about the wonders of ever larger open markets might do worse than reflect on the state of Scottish football. Open markets can be devastating to the smaller player, a bit like a Coalition with the Tories.
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Ah, so we need to ban protests in the name of free speech. Makes sense
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Student unions are also free to protest against speakers coming and call for events to be cancelled. But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
Free speech at universities (and elsewhere) is being undermined by the idiotic hate speech laws. Until the government move to a first amendment style protection of free expression then Jo Johnson is being completely disingenuous.
Indeed, the telegraph article itself quotes someone pledging to proctect 'legitimate speech' - what an utter nonsense as long as someone can vaguely determine a view to be rooted in 'hate' and thereby silence it in the name of true free speech.
Broad with a Duke ball in his hand in seaming conditions can be completely unplayable and formidable but in Australia he looks seriously unthreatening. Woakes has also been seriously disappointing and Curran looks more of the same. Our bowlers need a range of new tricks which they don't need to learn in this country. Anderson manages because he has additional skills although he is nothing like what he is in this country. At the moment getting 20 Australian wickets for any price in a single test match looks beyond us.
I wonder if we should be encouraging our younger bowlers to play with the kookaburra cricket ball so they need to try different things.
The fact that England are so well short of threatening to take 20 wickets unless it is for an impossible set of runs make these matches quite boring. Smith himself presents such profound difficulties to remove for this English attack.
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Student unions are also free to protest against speakers coming and call for events to be cancelled. But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
The whole debate has been conflated by the polarisation of politics via the likes of Brexit vote, Corbyn, Momentum and Trump....... once extreme positions that have now become the mainstream. People hate the other side so much they cannot face listening to them, let alone be bothered to try and take on their arguments.
If I was a student again I wouldn't want some rabid, Trump supporting zenephobic nitwit spewing out their vile at my student union. I don't understand though quite how people like Tatchell and Germaine Greer end up on the hitlist mind.
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Student unions are also free to protest against speakers coming and call for events to be cancelled. But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
The whole debate has been conflated by the polarisation of politics via the likes of Brexit vote, Corbyn, Momentum and Trump....... once extreme positions that have now become the mainstream. People hate the other side so much they cannot face listening to them, let alone be bothered to try and take on their arguments.
If I was a student again I wouldn't want some rabid, Trump supporting zenephobic nitwit spewing out their vile at my student union. I don't understand though quite how people like Tatchell and Germaine Greer end up on the hitlist mind.
Greer is seen as transphobic that’s why. In recent years there’s been quite a bit of criticism thrown towards feminists who are considered anti-trans or ‘TERFs’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Student unions are also free to protest against speakers coming and call for events to be cancelled. But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
The whole debate has been conflated by the polarisation of politics via the likes of Brexit vote, Corbyn, Momentum and Trump....... once extreme positions that have now become the mainstream. People hate the other side so much they cannot face listening to them, let alone be bothered to try and take on their arguments.
If I was a student again I wouldn't want some rabid, Trump supporting zenephobic nitwit spewing out their vile at my student union. I don't understand though quite how people like Tatchell and Germaine Greer end up on the hitlist mind.
Leftist purity testing and the transgender lobby calling anyone who isn't 100% in agreement with their stupid agenda transphobic has basically taken a lot of the older left by surprise.
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Student unions are also free to protest against speakers coming and call for events to be cancelled. But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
The whole debate has been conflated by the polarisation of politics via the likes of Brexit vote, Corbyn, Momentum and Trump....... once extreme positions that have now become the mainstream. People hate the other side so much they cannot face listening to them, let alone be bothered to try and take on their arguments.
If I was a student again I wouldn't want some rabid, Trump supporting zenephobic nitwit spewing out their vile at my student union. I don't understand though quite how people like Tatchell and Germaine Greer end up on the hitlist mind.
Greer is seen as transphobic that’s why. In recent years there’s been quite a bit of criticism thrown towards feminists who are considered anti-trans or ‘TERFs’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
You can add Dave Chapelle to the list as well:
“the only reason all of us are talking about transgenders is because white men want to do it. If it was just blacks and Mexican like, ‘Hey, y’all, we feel like girls inside.’ They’d be like, ‘Shut up, n*****, no one asked how you felt.’”
Very refreshing to hear a politician stick up for free speech.
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
That should already be the case under the 1986 education act, which states:
(1)Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.
(2)The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes (in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with— (a)the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or (b)the policy or objectives of that body.
The problem around no-platforming, which I think is deliberately conflated with other issues where ironically 'free speech' is used to shut down criticism of students and academics' profound and vocal objections to certain views, is that no-platforming on the grounds of hate speech is now much more liberally defined and is used to stifle debate in some areas where the issues are contestable - hence why the biggest problem has been with debates around transgenderism, where the politics has arguably got ahead of the science. It's easy to conflate that with groups themselves disinviting speakers after receiving representations - which may annoy the speaker concerned, but is perfectly within their rights and it would be absurd for the government to intervene.
Reminding unions of their duty and obligations under the act would surely suffice, but a relatively minor and solvable issue - contrary to what some people seem to think most students aren't militant activists - is being turned into a political row because a certain wing of the Tory Party is annoyed that generally students and academics at universities are progressive in their outlook - and are for various reasons royally pissed off with Brexit and thus fairly hostile towards its proponents (as they are perfectly entitled to be).
LOL, it’s like he’s trying to make himself unpopular.
He's always been a bit of a dick, tbh. Not a huge one, as I recall, but at least in his official persona he doesn't come across as a nice and charismatic chap. Good racer though.
On thread.....does anyone actually take Gavin Williamson seriously as a potential PM? Is he not on the Grant Schapps or Dianne Abbot gravitas scale?
It's a measure of the tories' desperation. We saw this 'nevermind the ability, look at the backstory' before in the case of Sajid Javid, who, incredible as it now is to recall, was once seriously regarded as a contender.
On thread.....does anyone actually take Gavin Williamson seriously as a potential PM? Is he not on the Grant Schapps or Dianne Abbot gravitas scale?
Far too early to tell, I would think. Like most I'd never heard of him until he became Defence Secretary. It may be he has stuck his head above the parapet too soon, that he is clever and confident but, as you say, lacks the gravitas to pull off what he clearly wants.
On thread.....does anyone actually take Gavin Williamson seriously as a potential PM? Is he not on the Grant Schapps or Dianne Abbot gravitas scale?
It's a measure of the tories' desperation. We saw this 'nevermind the ability, look at the backstory' before in the case of Sajid Javid, who, incredible as it now is to recall, was once seriously regarded as a contender.
Williamson has only really come on the scene as a potential contender - it's worth waiting to see if he demonstrates real quality in the next year, other than that, what option do people have but to take an initial judgement based on his political maneuvering and his backstory?
On thread.....does anyone actually take Gavin Williamson seriously as a potential PM? Is he not on the Grant Schapps or Dianne Abbot gravitas scale?
It's a measure of the tories' desperation. We saw this 'nevermind the ability, look at the backstory' before in the case of Sajid Javid, who, incredible as it now is to recall, was once seriously regarded as a contender.
Williamson has only really come on the scene as a potential contender - it's worth waiting to see if he demonstrates real quality in the next year, other than that, what option do people have but to take an initial judgement based on his political maneuvering and his backstory?
It really shouldn't take long to establish whether someone has the requisite intellectual ability and communication skills to even be considered as plausible. It was an emphatic no from me the first time I heard him interviewed. Meanwhile, Rory Stewart continues to be passed over ...
Re Trans issues: It seems we are back where we were c. 30 years ago when I was a student, re gay/lesbian rights. Similar arguments and pseudo-science being deployed. Many on the Right outraged by this loony new agenda. Many on the Old Left vehemently angry and dismissing it as a distraction from real issues.
Maybe we were a particularly apathetic lot but when I was at University significantly less than 1% of the student body had any interest in debating anything. We had far more interesting things to do like drink, make friends, have sex and, in desperation, study. The students who actually took an interest in who was speaking at the Union seemed positively weird and had no influence on the rest of us at all.
I find it hard to believe things have changed that much.
Varies with the generation, I think, and maybe who you happened to know. In the 60s/70s when I was at unis in the US/UK/Denmark (MIT/London/Copenhagen) it was intensely poliical - of course there were parties and sex and definitely study (which was seen as pretty crucial at all 3, unlike my school where nobody cared - a real culture shock), but lots of students spent maybe a third of their free time organising against the Vietnam war, for Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in the US, British and Danish left-wing counterparts in the others. My Communist activities were by no means unusual. Not much drinking that I remember, and only a bit of drugs on the fringe. I get the impression that the politics ebbed away in the late 80s and 90s and has only recently had a bit of a resurgence.
Maybe we were a particularly apathetic lot but when I was at University significantly less than 1% of the student body had any interest in debating anything. We had far more interesting things to do like drink, make friends, have sex and, in desperation, study. The students who actually took an interest in who was speaking at the Union seemed positively weird and had no influence on the rest of us at all.
I find it hard to believe things have changed that much.
Varies with the generation, I think, and maybe who you happened to know. In the 60s/70s when I was at unis in the US/UK/Denmark (MIT/London/Copenhagen) it was intensely poliical - of course there were parties and sex and definitely study (which was seen as pretty crucial at all 3, unlike my school where nobody cared - a real culture shock), but lots of students spent maybe a third of their free time organising against the Vietnam war, for Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in the US, British and Danish left-wing counterparts in the others. My Communist activities were by no means unusual. Not much drinking that I remember, and only a bit of drugs on the fringe. I get the impression that the politics ebbed away in the late 80s and 90s and has only recently had a bit of a resurgence.
Everyone is in their own bubble at University - you can easily spend 3 years only meeting student politics afficianados even though the other 95% think you're weirdos
Re Trans issues: It seems we are back where we were c. 30 years ago when I was a student, re gay/lesbian rights. Similar arguments and pseudo-science being deployed. Many on the Right outraged by this loony new agenda. Many on the Old Left vehemently angry and dismissing it as a distraction from real issues.
I went to Uni in 1967 and we had the requisite sit-in, and I enjoyed a day-out in Grosvenor Square. Plenty of alcohol but as for the Che posters, forget it. If that one with the tennis player scratching her bum had been around, that would have been a different matter.
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
Absolutely what they want, within the law? You wouldn't mind if a student group invited a provocateur to come and say why he thinks British troops are murderers and we should support ISIS?
I think I actually agree with allowing anyone to say anything legal but I've found that most people who say that's what they think actually draw the line at some opinions being expressed, even legal ones. And once you do that, you're in a quagmire. It's not clear to me that JoJo has thought it through.
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Student unions are also free to protest against speakers coming and call for events to be cancelled. But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
The whole debate has been conflated by the polarisation of politics via the likes of Brexit vote, Corbyn, Momentum and Trump....... once extreme positions that have now become the mainstream. People hate the other side so much they cannot face listening to them, let alone be bothered to try and take on their arguments.
If I was a student again I wouldn't want some rabid, Trump supporting zenephobic nitwit spewing out their vile at my student union. I don't understand though quite how people like Tatchell and Germaine Greer end up on the hitlist mind.
Greer is seen as transphobic that’s why. In recent years there’s been quite a bit of criticism thrown towards feminists who are considered anti-trans or ‘TERFs’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
My question is - can the new Doctor *really* be a woman, after enjoying literally *millennia* of male privilege?
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
Absolutely what they want, within the law? You wouldn't mind if a student group invited a provocateur to come and say why he thinks British troops are murderers and we should support ISIS?
I think I actually agree with allowing anyone to say anything legal but I've found that most people who say that's what they think actually draw the line at some opinions being expressed, even legal ones. And once you do that, you're in a quagmire. It's not clear to me that JoJo has thought it through.
Isn't expressing public support for a proscribed organisation illegal, therefore falling within Charles's description? Though I think the point is well made that it can easily become a quagmire (just for starters at what point do you become proscribed), and Johnson's efforts may be well intended but how it would work unclear.
I do think there is too much of a trend of seeking to prevent alternate views being expressed, even if they are relatively mainstream, but I don't think there are easy fixes for something like that.
Everyone is in their own bubble at University - you can easily spend 3 years only meeting student politics afficianados even though the other 95% think you're weirdos
True! I knew people who spent nearly ALL their free time playing board wargames...
Basically it's hard to generalise. But I doubt if it's 95%, now or then.
People should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to listen to someone with whose opinions they fundamentally disagree.
In which case you should support no platform policies. All they are is an organisation (usually if not exclusively) a student group saying we don’t want to invite someone to speak and if they are invited we won’t speak on the same stage.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Student unions are also free to protest against speakers coming and call for events to be cancelled. But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
The whole debate has been conflated by the polarisation of politics via the likes of Brexit vote, Corbyn, Momentum and Trump....... once extreme positions that have now become the mainstream. People hate the other side so much they cannot face listening to them, let alone be bothered to try and take on their arguments.
If I was a student again I wouldn't want some rabid, Trump supporting zenephobic nitwit spewing out their vile at my student union. I don't understand though quite how people like Tatchell and Germaine Greer end up on the hitlist mind.
Greer is seen as transphobic that’s why. In recent years there’s been quite a bit of criticism thrown towards feminists who are considered anti-trans or ‘TERFs’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
My question is - can the new Doctor *really* be a woman, after enjoying literally *millennia* of male privilege?
LOL. In all seriousness, I can imagine some uni courses exploring that example as a useful method of exploring some issues of identity and privilege and transition.
Maybe we were a particularly apathetic lot but when I was at University significantly less than 1% of the student body had any interest in debating anything. We had far more interesting things to do like drink, make friends, have sex and, in desperation, study. The students who actually took an interest in who was speaking at the Union seemed positively weird and had no influence on the rest of us at all.
I find it hard to believe things have changed that much.
Varies with the generation, I think, and maybe who you happened to know. In the 60s/70s when I was at unis in the US/UK/Denmark (MIT/London/Copenhagen) it was intensely poliical - of course there were parties and sex and definitely study (which was seen as pretty crucial at all 3, unlike my school where nobody cared - a real culture shock), but lots of students spent maybe a third of their free time organising against the Vietnam war, for Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in the US, British and Danish left-wing counterparts in the others. My Communist activities were by no means unusual. Not much drinking that I remember, and only a bit of drugs on the fringe. I get the impression that the politics ebbed away in the late 80s and 90s and has only recently had a bit of a resurgence.
At Lewisham college I did an evening-class in 'A-level' English-Law. Our lecturer was obviously lesbian (and got on well with both sexes; albeit the favourites were easy to define).
At the end-of-term drink she stated that she was a Communist: Tory that I asked why she did not choose to live in Russia.The answer silenced the whole group as she stated that '...because they would imprison me for my lesbianism'. My embarrassment at the time was painful: Your complicity Sven is just another 'foot-in-mouth' exemplar!
At Lewisham college I did an evening-class in 'A-level' English-Law. Our lecturer was obviously lesbian (and got on well with both sexes; albeit the favourites were easy to define).
At the end-of-term drink she stated that she was a Communist: Tory that I asked why she did not choose to live in Russia.The answer silenced the whole group as she stated that '...because they would imprison me for my lesbianism'. My embarrassment at the time was painful: Your complicity Sven is just another 'foot-in-mouth' exemplar!
Nothing odd about that, and I'm not sure why you were embarrassed (was it that you hadn't met many open lesbians?). Plenty of communists then didn't think much of Russia - the belief that the idea was possible without a dictatorship was one that lots of us held at the time.
Maybe we were a particularly apathetic lot but when I was at University significantly less than 1% of the student body had any interest in debating anything. We had far more interesting things to do like drink, make friends, have sex and, in desperation, study. The students who actually took an interest in who was speaking at the Union seemed positively weird and had no influence on the rest of us at all.
I find it hard to believe things have changed that much.
Varies with the generation, I think, and maybe who you happened to know. In the 60s/70s when I was at unis in the US/UK/Denmark (MIT/London/Copenhagen) it was intensely poliical - of course there were parties and sex and definitely study (which was seen as pretty crucial at all 3, unlike my school where nobody cared - a real culture shock), but lots of students spent maybe a third of their free time organising against the Vietnam war, for Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in the US, British and Danish left-wing counterparts in the others. My Communist activities were by no means unusual. Not much drinking that I remember, and only a bit of drugs on the fringe. I get the impression that the politics ebbed away in the late 80s and 90s and has only recently had a bit of a resurgence.
Everyone is in their own bubble at University - you can easily spend 3 years only meeting student politics afficianados even though the other 95% think you're weirdos
True comment. Although you could have stopped after the first 6 words and still been correct for the vast majority of humankind.
Nothing odd about that, and I'm not sure why you were embarrassed (was it that you hadn't met many open lesbians?). Plenty of communists then didn't think much of Russia - the belief that the idea was possible without a dictatorship was one that lots of us held at the time.
Sven, I was eighteen at the time so - probably - not: What I saw was a woman proud of her sexuality (under a Thatcher Government) and free to express it. [At the time I too worked for ILEA.]
Your self-obsession - I will omit the details - and commitment to sell any soul for your embellishment disturbs me. I think the last time we English met your type we had a 'reformation'.
But of course student unions are seeking to ban opinions they don't approve of being heard on university premises - the student unions don't of course own the buildings the university does - and also organise protests to stop the events where these speakers are appearing causing the university to cave in to the mob and ban the event.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
Student unions are also free to protest against speakers coming and call for events to be cancelled. But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
The whole debate has been conflated by the polarisation of politics via the likes of Brexit vote, Corbyn, Momentum and Trump....... once extreme positions that have now become the mainstream. People hate the other side so much they cannot face listening to them, let alone be bothered to try and take on their arguments.
If I was a student again I wouldn't want some rabid, Trump supporting zenephobic nitwit spewing out their vile at my student union. I don't understand though quite how people like Tatchell and Germaine Greer end up on the hitlist mind.
Greer is seen as transphobic that’s why. In recent years there’s been quite a bit of criticism thrown towards feminists who are considered anti-trans or ‘TERFs’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
My question is - can the new Doctor *really* be a woman, after enjoying literally *millennia* of male privilege?
LOL. In all seriousness, I can imagine some uni courses exploring that example as a useful method of exploring some issues of identity and privilege and transition.
Not to mention the class distinction. As a so called time "lord", not only did the doctor enjoy thousands of years of male privilege (in what is clearly a patriarchal society), as a member of the upper echelons of society her lived experience can never be the same as a trans Gallifreyan from a lower caste.
Think all this is absurd? You'll see the exact same arguments bandied about regarding the Trump-supporting Caitlyn Jenner.
At Lewisham college I did an evening-class in 'A-level' English-Law. Our lecturer was obviously lesbian (and got on well with both sexes; albeit the favourites were easy to define).
At the end-of-term drink she stated that she was a Communist: Tory that I asked why she did not choose to live in Russia.The answer silenced the whole group as she stated that '...because they would imprison me for my lesbianism'. My embarrassment at the time was painful: Your complicity Sven is just another 'foot-in-mouth' exemplar!
Nothing odd about that, and I'm not sure why you were embarrassed (was it that you hadn't met many open lesbians?). Plenty of communists then didn't think much of Russia - the belief that the idea was possible without a dictatorship was one that lots of us held at the time.
I'm pretty sure lesbianism per se was not illegal in the Soviet Union (male homosexuality was a crime) but presumably would have been a bar to party membership, and thus to any kind of worthwhile career.
This is not the longstanding YouGov right/wrong tracker which is a more neutral second referendum proxy. “At this point...” is quite leading and can’t be used to predict that the answer ‘at that point’ would be the same.
I'm pretty sure lesbianism per se was not illegal in the Soviet Union (male homosexuality was a crime) but presumably would have been a bar to party membership, and thus to any kind of worthwhile career.
Sean, you are wasting pixels:
I clearly state that - at the start of my course - it was clear our lecturer was a lesbian. The fact that Sven cannot comprehend this says all about his arrogance, comprehension, intelligence and lack-of-passion.
It is sad; but most upper-middle-class/communist/deluded are not as clever as they think. FGS: They buy the Grauniad as a tax-free badge-of-honour.
The most interesting result in that YouGov poll is that the country where the most people think the UK has the upper hand in negotiations is France. 27/36 versus 10/67 in the UK.
And Theresa May had one heck of a hypothetical lead in the run up to GE2017. A lot can change over the course of a campaign.
If there was a second referendum, I would expect the full weight of the remain establishment to be out in force this time. Remain will have learned from their mistakes of 2016 and will change their strategy accordingly. Moreover they will focus their energies on getting the young'uns who turned up for GE2017 to vote - which could give them a decisive advantage. Meanwhile I would expect leave to be disunited - would the coalition between free-market Hannanites and anti-immigration kippers really hold this time? Brexit can no longer mean whatever we want it to mean, it will be very clear going into a hypothetical second referendum what it will mean.
If there was a second referendum, I would expect it to be won by Remain. However the damage done to democracy on that day would be overwhelming. The 52% who saw their vote overruled could legitimately say the EU is a con where they will make you vote and vote again until you give the right answer. For that reason I disagree with those who say a second referendum would be perfectly democratic, for me it would spell the death knell of democracy - it would only be democratic in the sense of a one party state where you can vote for anyone you like because the result is always the same.
If on the other hand we leave and later rejoin that is another thing. However, it would take more than a Christmas miracle to make the Euro and Schengen popular.
This is not the longstanding YouGov right/wrong tracker which is a more neutral second referendum proxy. “At this point...” is quite leading and can’t be used to predict that the answer ‘at that point’ would be the same.
It is a bigger Leave lead even than Leave had in almost any pre referendum poll and is a clear 7% shift towards Leave since when the same question was asked in October
And Theresa May had one heck of a hypothetical lead in the run up to GE2017. A lot can change over the course of a campaign.
If there was a second referendum, I would expect the full weight of the remain establishment to be out in force this time. Remain will have learned from their mistakes of 2016 and will change their strategy accordingly. Moreover they will focus their energies on getting the young'uns who turned up for GE2017 to vote - which could give them a decisive advantage. Meanwhile I would expect leave to be disunited - would the coalition between free-market Hannanites and anti-immigration kippers really hold this time? Brexit can no longer mean whatever we want it to mean, it will be very clear going into a hypothetical second referendum what it will mean.
If there was a second referendum, I would expect it to be won by Remain. However the damage done to democracy on that day would be overwhelming. The 52% who saw their vote overruled could legitimately say the EU is a con where they will make you vote and vote again until you give the right answer. For that reason I disagree with those who say a second referendum would be perfectly democratic, for me it would spell the death knell of democracy - it would only be democratic in the sense of a one party state where you can vote for anyone you like because the result is always the same.
If on the other hand we leave and later rejoin that is another thing. However, it would take more than a Christmas miracle to make the Euro and Schengen popular.
May of course still won most votes and seats. Plus this poll shows the FTA that ends free movement we are likely to get is even popular with some Remainers.
Not that either Corbyn or May will call a second referendum in reality anyway
And Theresa May had one heck of a hypothetical lead in the run up to GE2017. A lot can change over the course of a campaign.
If there was a second referendum, I would expect the full weight of the remain establishment to be out in force this time. Remain will have learned from their mistakes of 2016 and will change their strategy accordingly. Moreover they will focus their energies on getting the young'uns who turned up for GE2017 to vote - which could give them a decisive advantage. Meanwhile I would expect leave to be disunited - would the coalition between free-market Hannanites and anti-immigration kippers really hold this time? Brexit can no longer mean whatever we want it to mean, it will be very clear going into a hypothetical second referendum what it will mean.
If there was a second referendum, I would expect it to be won by Remain. However the damage done to democracy on that day would be overwhelming. The 52% who saw their vote overruled could legitimately say the EU is a con where they will make you vote and vote again until you give the right answer. For that reason I disagree with those who say a second referendum would be perfectly democratic, for me it would spell the death knell of democracy - it would only be democratic in the sense of a one party state where you can vote for anyone you like because the result is always the same.
If on the other hand we leave and later rejoin that is another thing. However, it would take more than a Christmas miracle to make the Euro and Schengen popular.
IMHO, a second referendum would be like the Winchester by-election. Many people would be annoyed to be asked twice.
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
Absolutely what they want, within the law? You wouldn't mind if a student group invited a provocateur to come and say why he thinks British troops are murderers and we should support ISIS?
I think I actually agree with allowing anyone to say anything legal but I've found that most people who say that's what they think actually draw the line at some opinions being expressed, even legal ones. And once you do that, you're in a quagmire. It's not clear to me that JoJo has thought it through.
I'd imagine your specific example would fall foul if some kind of anti tertorism legislation. But yes, if what someone is saying is distasteful but legal and a university society wants to invite them to speak then they should be permitted to do so.
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
Absolutely what they want, within the law? You wouldn't mind if a student group invited a provocateur to come and say why he thinks British troops are murderers and we should support ISIS?
I think I actually agree with allowing anyone to say anything legal but I've found that most people who say that's what they think actually draw the line at some opinions being expressed, even legal ones. And once you do that, you're in a quagmire. It's not clear to me that JoJo has thought it through.
I'd imagine your specific example would fall foul if some kind of anti tertorism legislation. But yes, if what someone is saying is distasteful but legal and a university society wants to invite them to speak then they should be permitted to do so.
Are there not two issues here? The first is that everyone has the right to say something legal, even if distasteful. But note that others are not obliged to provide them with a platform to do so.
The second is that many universities and student societies have policies about not promoting hate / making people feel inclusive etc but then invite people to say things which appear to be completely contrary to the society's own policies. Often the problem arises when people object to such societies breaching their own policies by extending invitations to speakers/groups who do promote hate and are anything but inclusive to minorities. It is perfectly ok, it seems to me, to call student societies and universities out for their hypocrisy and failure to live up to their own publicly expressed standards.
Anyone have a clue whom they are? DefenceTalk has been down for too long (and I miss my Anglos-Sphere buddies: Th'UD is not included; please do your own research)!
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
Well, then: spell out what lies she has said and why she is wrong. But to say that should not be allowed to express her opinion is just silly. There is not just one received opinion on transgender issue which people are allowed to have and the intolerance of those who think there should be is far more damaging than allowing a multiplicity of views and a debate.
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
Absolutely what they want, within the law? You wouldn't mind if a student group invited a provocateur to come and say why he thinks British troops are murderers and we should support ISIS?
I think I actually agree with allowing anyone to say anything legal but I've found that most people who say that's what they think actually draw the line at some opinions being expressed, even legal ones. And once you do that, you're in a quagmire. It's not clear to me that JoJo has thought it through.
I'd imagine your specific example would fall foul if some kind of anti tertorism legislation. But yes, if what someone is saying is distasteful but legal and a university society wants to invite them to speak then they should be permitted to do so.
Are there not two issues here? The first is that everyone has the right to say something legal, even if distasteful. But note that others are not obliged to provide them with a platform to do so.
The second is that many universities and student societies have policies about not promoting hate / making people feel inclusive etc but then invite people to say things which appear to be completely contrary to the society's own policies. Often the problem arises when people object to such societies breaching their own policies by extending invitations to speakers/groups who do promote hate and are anything but inclusive to minorities. It is perfectly ok, it seems to me, to call student societies and universities out for their hypocrisy and failure to live up to their own publicly expressed standards.
Where I have seen an issue reported in the past it's where a student society invites someone to speak but then the Student Union intervenes and says "you can't use the Union building" which is effectively the Union imposing its views and stifling free speech.
Fundamentally the university level student unions should be broadly apolitical (the NUS has a much more overtly political role)
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
Well, then: spell out what lies she has said and why she is wrong. But to say that should not be allowed to express her opinion is just silly. There is not just one received opinion on transgender issue which people are allowed to have and the intolerance of those who think there should be is far more damaging than allowing a multiplicity of views and a debate.
As a TG person, I really abhor this labelling of people who dislike us as 'transphobic'. Ms Greer has a point of view that is disagreeable to some folk, but reflects a real concern about the conflict between trans- and cis- rights.
Where I have seen an issue reported in the past it's where a student society invites someone to speak but then the Student Union intervenes and says "you can't use the Union building" which is effectively the Union imposing its views and stifling free speech.
Fundamentally the university level student unions should be broadly apolitical (the NUS has a much more overtly political role)
Speaking purely for myself, after 8 years at university in four institutions the big problem is that every student, whether they like it or not, are members of their university student guild and 90% therefore are also members of the NUS whether they like it or not. Which further means, like it or not, they are (a) associated with its madder policies and (b) given the pretty serious uselessness of the NUS which is interested more in political point scoring than the welfare of students, have no meaningful organisation to represent them. Moreover as all student organisations are forced to be registered with these guilds they have effective veto over their actions and powers, which would be acceptable only if the guilds were run by intelligent, reasonable and hardworking people (which they are not).
If Johnson is serious about getting rid of 'no platforming,' or indeed many other issues plaguing students he should start by saying guild membership cannot be automatic and no student organisation formed for legal purposes can be compelled to register with them - although I have no doubt many would continue to do so given the choice for a number of practical reasons. I think that would suddenly and dramatically improve many things and it would of course effectively end no platforming as he wishes.
Back in the days - when I was a young student - the NUS card was tied to the LSESU one. Without the latter you could not expect entry into "The Three Tuns" and associated LSE piss-ups.
Socialists: Exploiting* and and demoralising. Nothing changes....
* Dodgy 'commercial' tokens were grafted. Most were more wasted than I was.
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
Absolutely what they want, within the law? You wouldn't mind if a student group invited a provocateur to come and say why he thinks British troops are murderers and we should support ISIS?
I think I actually agree with allowing anyone to say anything legal but I've found that most people who say that's what they think actually draw the line at some opinions being expressed, even legal ones. And once you do that, you're in a quagmire. It's not clear to me that JoJo has thought it through.
I'd imagine your specific example would fall foul if some kind of anti tertorism legislation. But yes, if what someone is saying is distasteful but legal and a university society wants to invite them to speak then they should be permitted to do so.
Are there not two issues here? The first is that everyone has the right to say something legal, even if distasteful. But note that others are not obliged to provide them with a platform to do so.
The second is that many universities and student societies have policies about not promoting hate / making people feel inclusive etc but then invite people to say things which appear to be completely contrary to the society's own policies. Often the problem arises when people object to such societies breaching their own policies by extending invitations to speakers/groups who do promote hate and are anything but inclusive to minorities. It is perfectly ok, it seems to me, to call student societies and universities out for their hypocrisy and failure to live up to their own publicly expressed standards.
Where I have seen an issue reported in the past it's where a student society invites someone to speak but then the Student Union intervenes and says "you can't use the Union building" which is effectively the Union imposing its views and stifling free speech.
Fundamentally the university level student unions should be broadly apolitical (the NUS has a much more overtly political role)
It should be fairly straightforward to hold that no society is obliged to give a platform to speakers it disagrees with, but in turn, no society should be barred from giving a platform to speakers with controversial views, if they wish to.
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
Well, then: spell out what lies she has said and why she is wrong. But to say that should not be allowed to express her opinion is just silly. There is not just one received opinion on transgender issue which people are allowed to have and the intolerance of those who think there should be is far more damaging than allowing a multiplicity of views and a debate.
As a TG person, I really abhor this labelling of people who dislike us as 'transphobic'. Ms Greer has a point of view that is disagreeable to some folk, but reflects a real concern about the conflict between trans- and cis- rights.
It was this far leftist approach to debate that will drive us into the ground. Rather than argue with people, Corbynista types would prefer to label people with terms that mean they shouldn't be listened to: neoliberal, transphobic, Zionist, Blairite. As we have seen with the American Republicans, the lack of listening to anything but orthodoxy ends up with you launching into extremism.
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
Well, then: spell out what lies she has said and why she is wrong. But to say that should not be allowed to express her opinion is just silly. There is not just one received opinion on transgender issue which people are allowed to have and the intolerance of those who think there should be is far more damaging than allowing a multiplicity of views and a debate.
As a TG person, I really abhor this labelling of people who dislike us as 'transphobic'. Ms Greer has a point of view that is disagreeable to some folk, but reflects a real concern about the conflict between trans- and cis- rights.
It was this far leftist approach to debate that will drive us into the ground. Rather than argue with people, Corbynista types would prefer to label people with terms that mean they shouldn't be listened to: neoliberal, transphobic, Zionist, Blairite. As we have seen with the American Republicans, the lack of listening to anything but orthodoxy ends up with you launching into extremism.
Of course, but not limited to the left. Rightists have their mirror language to close down debate.
Some very interesting numbers there on the click through. Only 16% of Brits think a soft Irish border should be prioritised, far below concerns about trade, immigration and ECJ jurisdiction. France looks like it has a very negative view of the economy and ambivalence about the EU. None of the EU countries are particularly concerned about the UK getting the benefits of being in the EU without membership obligations. The French think the UK and the EU are evenly matched in leverage. There is deep hostility across EU countries to Schultz's federal Europe plan.
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
Well, then: spell out what lies she has said and why she is wrong. But to say that should not be allowed to express her opinion is just silly. There is not just one received opinion on transgender issue which people are allowed to have and the intolerance of those who think there should be is far more damaging than allowing a multiplicity of views and a debate.
As a TG person, I really abhor this labelling of people who dislike us as 'transphobic'. Ms Greer has a point of view that is disagreeable to some folk, but reflects a real concern about the conflict between trans- and cis- rights.
It was this far leftist approach to debate that will drive us into the ground. Rather than argue with people, Corbynista types would prefer to label people with terms that mean they shouldn't be listened to: neoliberal, transphobic, Zionist, Blairite. As we have seen with the American Republicans, the lack of listening to anything but orthodoxy ends up with you launching into extremism.
Of course, but not limited to the left. Rightists have their mirror language to close down debate.
It seems to be far more prevalent in Labour than any of the other parties. The worst or it on the right is on the internet, and mainly from Americans.
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
Well, then: spell out what lies she has said and why she is wrong. But to say that should not be allowed to express her opinion is just silly. There is not just one received opinion on transgender issue which people are allowed to have and the intolerance of those who think there should be is far more damaging than allowing a multiplicity of views and a debate.
As a TG person, I really abhor this labelling of people who dislike us as 'transphobic'. Ms Greer has a point of view that is disagreeable to some folk, but reflects a real concern about the conflict between trans- and cis- rights.
It was this far leftist approach to debate that will drive us into the ground. Rather than argue with people, Corbynista types would prefer to label people with terms that mean they shouldn't be listened to: neoliberal, transphobic, Zionist, Blairite. As we have seen with the American Republicans, the lack of listening to anything but orthodoxy ends up with you launching into extremism.
Of course, but not limited to the left. Rightists have their mirror language to close down debate.
It seems to be far more prevalent in Labour than any of the other parties. The worst or it on the right is on the internet, and mainly from Americans.
Plenty on here too. Even calling them Corbynistas as a way of disparaging the legitimacy of some of their arguments.
The issue isn't so much the student unions deciding not to invite someone but they will prevent another student group (e.g. Tory club) inviting someone they disapprove of (e.g. by refusing use of shared facilities. That should be banned - shared facilities are shared facilities and providing it's not illegal people should be allowed to do what they want
Absolutely what they want, within the law? You wouldn't mind if a student group invited a provocateur to come and say why he thinks British troops are murderers and we should support ISIS?
I think I actually agree with allowing anyone to say anything legal but I've found that most people who say that's what they think actually draw the line at some opinions being expressed, even legal ones. And once you do that, you're in a quagmire. It's not clear to me that JoJo has thought it through.
I'd imagine your specific example would fall foul if some kind of anti tertorism legislation. But yes, if what someone is saying is distasteful but legal and a university society wants to invite them to speak then they should be permitted to do so.
Are there not two issues here? The first is that everyone has the right to say something legal, even if distasteful. But note that others are not obliged to provide them with a platform to do so.
The second is that many universities and student societies have policies about not promoting hate / making people feel inclusive etc but then invite people to say things which appear to be completely contrary to the society's own policies. Often the problem arises when people object to such societies breaching their own policies by extending invitations to speakers/groups who do promote hate and are anything but inclusive to minorities. It is perfectly ok, it seems to me, to call student societies and universities out for their hypocrisy and failure to live up to their own publicly expressed standards.
Where I have seen an issue reported in the past it's where a student society invites someone to speak but then the Student Union intervenes and says "you can't use the Union building" which is effectively the Union imposing its views and stifling free speech.
Fundamentally the university level student unions should be broadly apolitical (the NUS has a much more overtly political role)
The problem with the "no platform" argument is that most platforms are held by powerful entrenched interests. If your views are outside those, then you can't get any platform and you are effectively denied speech. As an ex-Muslim I am very sensitive to this.
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
Well, then: spell out what lies she has said and why she is wrong. But to say that should not be allowed to express her opinion is just silly. There is not just one received opinion on transgender issue which people are allowed to have and the intolerance of those who think there should be is far more damaging than allowing a multiplicity of views and a debate.
As a TG person, I really abhor this labelling of people who dislike us as 'transphobic'. Ms Greer has a point of view that is disagreeable to some folk, but reflects a real concern about the conflict between trans- and cis- rights.
It was this far leftist approach to debate that will drive us into the ground. Rather than argue with people, Corbynista types would prefer to label people with terms that mean they shouldn't be listened to: neoliberal, transphobic, Zionist, Blairite. As we have seen with the American Republicans, the lack of listening to anything but orthodoxy ends up with you launching into extremism.
Of course, but not limited to the left. Rightists have their mirror language to close down debate.
It seems to be far more prevalent in Labour than any of the other parties. The worst or it on the right is on the internet, and mainly from Americans.
Plenty on here too. Even calling them Corbynistas as a way of disparaging the legitimacy of some of their arguments.
Corbynista is simply a description of a group of people. It is the same for Blairite. It can be used to describe or used to silence. Context makes for the difference.
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
Well, then: spell out what lies she has said and why she is wrong. But to say that should not be allowed to express her opinion is just silly. There is not just one received opinion on transgender issue which people are allowed to have and the intolerance of those who think there should be is far more damaging than allowing a multiplicity of views and a debate.
As a TG person, I really abhor this labelling of people who dislike us as 'transphobic'. Ms Greer has a point of view that is disagreeable to some folk, but reflects a real concern about the conflict between trans- and cis- rights.
It was this far leftist approach to debate that will drive us into the ground. Rather than argue with people, Corbynista types would prefer to label people with terms that mean they shouldn't be listened to: neoliberal, transphobic, Zionist, Blairite. As we have seen with the American Republicans, the lack of listening to anything but orthodoxy ends up with you launching into extremism.
Of course, but not limited to the left. Rightists have their mirror language to close down debate.
It seems to be far more prevalent in Labour than any of the other parties. The worst or it on the right is on the internet, and mainly from Americans.
Plenty on here too. Even calling them Corbynistas as a way of disparaging the legitimacy of some of their arguments.
Corbynista is simply a description of a group of people. It is the same for Blairite. It can be used to describe or used to silence. Context makes for the difference.
The context thay you used it in was an example of the latter.
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
What are the lies that she has told?
“No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight. The insistence that man-made women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males.”
This is a very obvious lie. Ignoring the fact hat at the time she wrote this uterus transplants were not possible plenty of trans women want a uterus.
Like the average TERF she sees trans women as men trying to take over womanhood and oppress women. Which is so far from the average trans persons actions and beliefs (not that I'm any kind of expert) that it's an impossible and worthless point of view to debate. It's next to impossible to debate lies.
Germaine Greer is a lying transphobe. She has a history of lying about trans people and how they think and what they've done.
What are the lies that she has told?
“No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight. The insistence that man-made women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males.”
This is a very obvious lie. Ignoring the fact hat at the time she wrote this uterus transplants were not possible plenty of trans women want a uterus.
Like the average TERF she sees trans women as men trying to take over womanhood and oppress women. Which is so far from the average trans persons actions and beliefs (not that I'm any kind of expert) that it's an impossible and worthless point of view to debate. It's next to impossible to debate lies.
This is like arguing whether the Son is of one substance with the Father, or whether they are of like substance. I've no idea whether she or her opponents are correct, nor do I see it as important.
Comments
It's a necessarily messy area, and probably best dealt with by students themselves - there's already a fairly strong backlash against the most bonkers stuff - and if students are unhappy with their union's political leanings, they are free to set up alternative parallel structures or meetings - NUS groups can't enforce policies beyond their jurisdiction.
There is a separate discussion about what limits should be placed on free speech.
Glasgae-Celtic are looking to off-load Dembele for £18-million this January. To the premiership giants that are Brighton & Hove Albion.
It is a sad state of affairs when the mighty Scots are reduced to a feeder-club for a local hockey-club. So the question is: Which English league would you place the biggest Scots clubs?
I wonder if we should be encouraging our younger bowlers to play with the kookaburra cricket ball so they need to try different things.
Can't we have a separate University for Snowflakes? Only prescribed subjects will be taught. Sociology and feminist theory, for example, and even here no rough people like that Germaine Greer will be allowed to come and frighten the students.
I find the whole things amusing. Oh, and no one is allowed to die either cos that's bad.
Celtic in the same season had a profit of £6m and a turnover of £90m, mainly because of the money made in the Champions League. Strip that out (since they wouldn't qualify in England) and they probably have the turnover of a Championship team with more potential upside given their support. After a period of adjustment I think they could win promotion to the EPL and do reasonably well there once they had the riches of the Sky and BT contracts to feed on. At the moment in Scotland Celtic are the only game in town and I don't see any other club that could hope to survive in the Championship let alone win promotion.
You haven’t really understood the issue though.
You do wonder what sort of people our universities are going to be churning out and what the future of the U.K will be like if their ilk and their Marxist dogma end up running the country. Some sort of 1984esque nightmare where only approved thought speech is allowed.
The best way to challenge speech you disagree with is to debate it.
I find it hard to believe things have changed that much.
Free speech isn't absolute. Inciting criminality is not legal and nor should it be.
But it’s absolutely her right to do so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42244389
Not to mention that Smarties is not a stocking staple outside the writer's home and the article never answers the question of where the name came from.
Those who wax lyrical about the wonders of ever larger open markets might do worse than reflect on the state of Scottish football. Open markets can be devastating to the smaller player, a bit like a Coalition with the Tories.
That's the issue - you have the right to prevent anyone speaking in your home or hall in theory. What you don't really have the right to do is intimidate others to stop them hosting speakers in their property by the use of threats, intimidation or rioting.
But they should not intimidate anyone from attending or try to physically stop events.
https://twitter.com/JustNabz/status/945375584401739776
What a dick.
If I was a student again I wouldn't want some rabid, Trump supporting zenephobic nitwit spewing out their vile at my student union. I don't understand though quite how people like Tatchell and Germaine Greer end up on the hitlist mind.
“the only reason all of us are talking about transgenders is because white men want to do it. If it was just blacks and Mexican like, ‘Hey, y’all, we feel like girls inside.’ They’d be like, ‘Shut up, n*****, no one asked how you felt.’”
Which I think is true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ue_5T4fMk
You'd have thought the Daily Mail would be all over this.
Are you sure you didn't watch the Tehran march?
You are such a snowflake, getting all offended and outraged by something that google nor yourself seem to be able to find.
The problem arises when virtue-signalling becomes a competitive sport.
We can be more right-on than you can. Is that all you can find to be virtuous about? Pah! You're not even trying.
It seems we are back where we were c. 30 years ago when I was a student, re gay/lesbian rights. Similar arguments and pseudo-science being deployed.
Many on the Right outraged by this loony new agenda.
Many on the Old Left vehemently angry and dismissing it as a distraction from real issues.
How long was John Major chancellor before he replaced Maggie? To use a horse-racing term: Is the young colt coming through on firmer ground...?
I went to Uni in 1967 and we had the requisite sit-in, and I enjoyed a day-out in Grosvenor Square. Plenty of alcohol but as for the Che posters, forget it. If that one with the tennis player scratching her bum had been around, that would have been a different matter.
Most others didn't give a monkeys.
I think I actually agree with allowing anyone to say anything legal but I've found that most people who say that's what they think actually draw the line at some opinions being expressed, even legal ones. And once you do that, you're in a quagmire. It's not clear to me that JoJo has thought it through.
I do think there is too much of a trend of seeking to prevent alternate views being expressed, even if they are relatively mainstream, but I don't think there are easy fixes for something like that.
Basically it's hard to generalise. But I doubt if it's 95%, now or then.
At Lewisham college I did an evening-class in 'A-level' English-Law. Our lecturer was obviously lesbian (and got on well with both sexes; albeit the favourites were easy to define).
At the end-of-term drink she stated that she was a Communist: Tory that I asked why she did not choose to live in Russia.The answer silenced the whole group as she stated that '...because they would imprison me for my lesbianism'. My embarrassment at the time was painful: Your complicity Sven is just another 'foot-in-mouth' exemplar!
"Plenty of communists then didn't think much of Russia."
The Trots accused them of being "state capitalists". They were always the wild bunch at the time. They're undergoing a resurgence among the naïve.
Just my opinion.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/945651166691647488
Captures something of that notion that, however they might vote in a hypothetical second vote, the population does not fancy one.
Your self-obsession - I will omit the details - and commitment to sell any soul for your embellishment disturbs me. I think the last time we English met your type we had a 'reformation'.
Think all this is absurd? You'll see the exact same arguments bandied about regarding the Trump-supporting Caitlyn Jenner.
I clearly state that - at the start of my course - it was clear our lecturer was a lesbian. The fact that Sven cannot comprehend this says all about his arrogance, comprehension, intelligence and lack-of-passion.
It is sad; but most upper-middle-class/communist/deluded are not as clever as they think. FGS: They buy the Grauniad as a tax-free badge-of-honour.
If there was a second referendum, I would expect the full weight of the remain establishment to be out in force this time. Remain will have learned from their mistakes of 2016 and will change their strategy accordingly. Moreover they will focus their energies on getting the young'uns who turned up for GE2017 to vote - which could give them a decisive advantage. Meanwhile I would expect leave to be disunited - would the coalition between free-market Hannanites and anti-immigration kippers really hold this time? Brexit can no longer mean whatever we want it to mean, it will be very clear going into a hypothetical second referendum what it will mean.
If there was a second referendum, I would expect it to be won by Remain. However the damage done to democracy on that day would be overwhelming. The 52% who saw their vote overruled could legitimately say the EU is a con where they will make you vote and vote again until you give the right answer. For that reason I disagree with those who say a second referendum would be perfectly democratic, for me it would spell the death knell of democracy - it would only be democratic in the sense of a one party state where you can vote for anyone you like because the result is always the same.
If on the other hand we leave and later rejoin that is another thing. However, it would take more than a Christmas miracle to make the Euro and Schengen popular.
Not that either Corbyn or May will call a second referendum in reality anyway
The second is that many universities and student societies have policies about not promoting hate / making people feel inclusive etc but then invite people to say things which appear to be completely contrary to the society's own policies. Often the problem arises when people object to such societies breaching their own policies by extending invitations to speakers/groups who do promote hate and are anything but inclusive to minorities. It is perfectly ok, it seems to me, to call student societies and universities out for their hypocrisy and failure to live up to their own publicly expressed standards.
FORUM SOFTWARE BY XENFORO™ ©2010-2017 XENFORO LTD.
Anyone have a clue whom they are? DefenceTalk has been down for too long (and I miss my Anglos-Sphere buddies: Th'UD is not included; please do your own research)!
Fundamentally the university level student unions should be broadly apolitical (the NUS has a much more overtly political role)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikrz4RFDhjA *
Weird video; but - heck - "Big-Six" is more explicit.
* More sanitised:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clbqKFM5oQY
If Johnson is serious about getting rid of 'no platforming,' or indeed many other issues plaguing students he should start by saying guild membership cannot be automatic and no student organisation formed for legal purposes can be compelled to register with them - although I have no doubt many would continue to do so given the choice for a number of practical reasons. I think that would suddenly and dramatically improve many things and it would of course effectively end no platforming as he wishes.
Socialists: Exploiting* and and demoralising. Nothing changes....
* Dodgy 'commercial' tokens were grafted. Most were more wasted than I was.
In truth Schulz doesn't have a viable plan anyway. He is just attention seeking.
This is a very obvious lie. Ignoring the fact hat at the time she wrote this uterus transplants were not possible plenty of trans women want a uterus.
Like the average TERF she sees trans women as men trying to take over womanhood and oppress women. Which is so far from the average trans persons actions and beliefs (not that I'm any kind of expert) that it's an impossible and worthless point of view to debate. It's next to impossible to debate lies.