The Conservative Party

[Ban-jani]

Oscar Wilde reincarnated.

I always knew you liked blokes.

 

[jma]

I always knew you liked blokes.

Sorry, Chubby Brown reincarnated.

 

[BobKowalski]

If that’s what you think you are doing you’re already dead and lying on the hill dear Bob.

What they are doing is fining universities who restrict speakers from one side of the political divide/argument or universities that lecture from a biased position.

The people legislating what can be taught is those that work at universities now, those are the people exhibiting soviet tactics, not the government who is trying to keep free speech open.

My sister said to me the only time she hears conservative perspectives is when she sees me, she’s a Labour voter and admits who entire university is geared towards leftist thinking.

The Govt has no business in fining Universities, it has no business, period. The Govt is not interested in free speech, it is interested in promoting speech it agrees with.

This is no different to the Chinese or any illiberal Govt attempting to shape what is acceptable debate and what is not. You agree with it because it is shaping debate around what you personally find acceptable and, to be frank, your obsession with ‘leftist thinking’.

This is up there with trying to dictate courses Universities offer and other illiberal nonsense that Conservatives are fond of.

 

[Ban-jani]

The Govt has no business in fining Universities, it has no business, period. The Govt is not interested in free speech, it is interested in promoting speech it agrees with.

This is no different to the Chinese or any illiberal Govt attempting to shape what is acceptable debate and what is not. You agree with it because it is shaping debate around what you personally find acceptable and, to be frank, your obsession with ‘leftist thinking’.

This is up there with trying to dictate courses Universities offer and other illiberal nonsense that Conservatives are fond of.

This is a terrible teribletake.

You don’t think the elected government should be involved in the curriculum and and dialogue that’s permitted - let’s be clear, they aren’t stopping speech, they are going to police those stopping it - in our education institutions, that they fund?

It is the responsibility of the government to ensure our education system is open to differing ideas.

The Chinese government isn’t elected, ours is, that’s the first point. The 2nd point is they aren’t dictating what you can or cannot talk about, they are moderating campuses to make sure different sides of the debate get to speak.

Again, you are creating a straw man. They are not stopping any views, they are stopping people from stopping others giving views.

The left will still get its microphone, quite rightly, and universities will still be swinging to the left, as they always have, what they are doing is ensuring universities also provide a platform for people who want to express conservative views, without being shouted down or attacked.

This annoys you because you don’t want that to happen, it would be better for everyone if you just admitted it.

If universities were right wing and left wing speakers were being stopped from speaking, I’d still support this measure.

 

[meltonblue]

The argument the universities will rightly say is they and students are as supportive of free speech as the general populace, the research that the government themselves cite showed that. No platforming is nowhere near the issue that it is being made out to be - the research backs that up too.

The question is then why are they creating an issue out of it now and feeling the need to be so disingenuous about it. From saying about books being banned when no evidence at all was found for it, even in this they cite a report that used an example of someone being no platformed in Germaine Greer at Cardiff that didn’t even happen, it’s just factually wrong. You then have Williamson writing about “turning the tide of the cancel culture” in the Telegraph to go alongside the publication of it.

On whether the government should get involved, a core principle of our university education is academic freedom, that’s completely incompatible to then having a government policing it. This is why people are concerned about it, it’s what gets caught in the crosshairs with how far they go with proposed legislation.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The argument the universities will rightly say is they and students are as supportive of free speech as the general populace, the research that the government themselves cite showed that. No platforming is nowhere near the issue that it is being made out to be - the research backs that up too.

The question is then why are they creating an issue out of it now and feeling the need to be so disingenuous about it. From saying about books being banned when no evidence at all was found for it, even in this they cite a report that used an example of someone being no platformed in Germaine Greer at Cardiff that didn’t even happen, it’s just factually wrong. You then have Williamson writing about “turning the tide of the cancel culture” in the Telegraph to go alongside the publication of it.

On whether the government should get involved, a core principle of our university education is academic freedom, that’s completely incompatible to then having a government policing it. This is why people are concerned about it, it’s what gets caught in the crosshairs with how far they go with proposed legislation.

the problem with it is you cannot tell how serious they are with this stuff - some of it is clearly a distraction from the reality they have created but within there will be a hard core of zealots pushing for this nonsense to happed because they see "reds under the bed" type of mentality

 

[Ban-jani]

The argument the universities will rightly say is they and students are as supportive of free speech as the general populace, the research that the government themselves cite showed that. No platforming is nowhere near the issue that it is being made out to be - the research backs that up too.

The question is then why are they creating an issue out of it now and feeling the need to be so disingenuous about it. From saying about books being banned when no evidence at all was found for it, even in this they cite a report that used an example of someone being no platformed in Germaine Greer at Cardiff that didn’t even happen, it’s just factually wrong. You then have Williamson writing about “turning the tide of the cancel culture” in the Telegraph to go alongside the publication of it.

On whether the government should get involved, a core principle of our university education is academic freedom, that’s completely incompatible to then having a government policing it. This is why people are concerned about it, it’s what gets caught in the crosshairs with how far they go with proposed legislation.

The essential point you are missing is that if these universities don’t have a case to answer then they won’t be fined, it’s as simple as that.

Universities are really difficult places for people who have differing opinions to the majority and they’re getting much worse.

You mentioned Germaine Greer but the facts are she pulled out and then reversed her decision, despite abuse and threats if she spoke at that university, what for? Saying “trans women” aren’t “real women”. Because she did actually give the lecture after the abuse, it doesn’t mean it was acceptable and she, and others, shouldn’t be supported. The attempt to stop her still happened but she was more brave than the idiots sending her the abuse.

Marcus Rashford still continues to play football despite some utter cretin racially abusing him and telling him he shouldn’t, does that mean we shouldn’t do anything about it?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Hartlepool voted Tory - working out well for them so far..........at least Brexit is done and the 0.2% of people who live there who were born abroad won't be brining relatives in to stay with them............like they would be attracted to this

 

[meltonblue]

The essential point you are missing is that if these universities don’t have a case to answer then they won’t be fined, it’s as simple as that.

Universities are really difficult places for people who have differing opinions to the majority and they’re getting much worse.

You mentioned Germaine Greer but the facts are she pulled out and then reversed her decision, despite abuse and threats if she spoke at that university, what for? Saying “trans women” aren’t “real women”. Because she did actually give the lecture after the abuse, it doesn’t mean it was acceptable and she, and others, shouldn’t be supported. The attempt to stop her still happened but she was more brave than the idiots sending her the abuse.

Marcus Rashford still continues to play football despite some utter cretin racially abusing him and telling him he shouldn’t, does that mean we shouldn’t do anything about it?

It isn’t as simple as that at all, that’s the whole issue and it isn’t the essential point. The conservatives are trying to make it a simplistic argument at the same time as introducing complex legislation and people are falling for it. It’s also why they’ve only cited one report for the basis of their argument.

Universities are no different to anywhere else, they’d in fact argue that they’re greater advocates of free speech than most and the KCL research the government cited would back that sentiment up. They are not more difficult places either, the majority of students believe their freedom of speech is less threatened at their universities than it is in the U.K. in general (again, the findings of the report the government themselves cite). It’s a disingenuous narrative that is being pushed and they’re that brazen about it, they’re using reports that counter their whole point as validation.

There were 55,500 external speakers at universities last year. 53 weren’t approved. That’s how minuscule this issue actually is.

There’s a reason it’s being criticised by rational conservatives too. The Greer one, you’re missing the point. The report that has a completely false account of what actually happened as justification for implementing measures against something that didn’t even happen in the first place. That’s how badly proposed this is and how badly written and researched it is.

None of this stops people protesting against speakers like Greer btw. The Rashford analogy doesn’t work (aside from if you’re talking about the racial abuse aspect, which is covered in existing legislation that applies to everyone anyway)

 

[Ban-jani]

It isn’t as simple as that at all, that’s the whole issue and it isn’t the essential point. The conservatives are trying to make it a simplistic argument at the same time as introducing complex legislation and people are falling for it. It’s also why they’ve only cited one report for the basis of their argument.

Universities are no different to anywhere else, they’d in fact argue that they’re greater advocates of free speech than most and the KCL research the government cited would back that sentiment up. They are not more difficult places either, the majority of students believe their freedom of speech is less threatened at their universities than it is in the U.K. in general (again, the findings of the report the government themselves cite). It’s a disingenuous narrative that is being pushed and they’re that brazen about it, they’re using reports that counter their whole point as validation.

There were 55,500 external speakers at universities last year. 53 weren’t approved. That’s how minuscule this issue actually is.

There’s a reason it’s being criticised by rational conservatives too. The Greer one, you’re missing the point. The report that has a completely false account of what actually happened as justification for implementing measures against something that didn’t even happen in the first place. That’s how badly proposed this is and how badly written and researched it is.

None of this stops people protesting against speakers like Greer btw. The Rashford analogy doesn’t work (aside from if you’re talking about the racial abuse aspect, which is covered in existing legislation that applies to everyone anyway)

How are they introducing complex legislation but trying to make it overly simplistic?

What do you mean by “universities are no different to anywhere else?” - well yes they are, it’s a bit of a nothing statement that doesn’t make any sense. Universities are education institutions that receive taxpayer money, they’re very different to “anywhere else”. The same events that happen on university campuses don’t happen elsewhere in society, in the main, and they’re supposed to be bringing through the most talented of the next generation of professionals and academics. If you meant no different in terms of political leanings, again, that’s incorrect. They are more left wing than wider society, every survey shows this and other institutions don’t have the same level of discourse on a regular basis, if ever.

Do you have a link to these reports? I am not going to just take your word for it without seeing it myself.

You think 53 people stopped from speaking because people disagree with them is a “minuscule” problem? Is that 53 not approved by the school or 53 actually blocked by students? Regardless, 1 is too many. And if it isn’t a problem, that could potentially be 53 fines and the rest not being fined. Job done.

The wider issue isn’t just public speakers being targeted that have been booked, it’s universities not booking some in the first place, the narrative being set on campus by the staff and students wanting to remove or rid the universities of historical buildings, monuments and in a minority of cases, books, because the characters or individuals don’t fit today’s standards or their standards.

 

[meltonblue]

How are they introducing complex legislation but trying to make it overly simplistic?

What do you mean by “universities are no different to anywhere else?” - well yes they are, it’s a bit of a nothing statement that doesn’t make any sense. Universities are education institutions that receive taxpayer money, they’re very different to “anywhere else”. The same events that happen on university campuses don’t happen elsewhere in society, in the main, and they’re supposed to be bringing through the most talented of the next generation of professionals and academics. If you meant no different in terms of political leanings, again, that’s incorrect. They are more left wing than wider society, every survey shows this and other institutions don’t have the same level of discourse on a regular basis, if ever.

Do you have a link to these reports? I am not going to just take your word for it without seeing it myself.

You think 53 people stopped from speaking because people disagree with them is a “minuscule” problem? Is that 53 not approved by the school or 53 actually blocked by students? Regardless, 1 is too many. And if it isn’t a problem, that could potentially be 53 fines and the rest not being fined. Job done.

The wider issue isn’t just public speakers being targeted that have been booked, it’s universities not booking some in the first place, the narrative being set on campus by the staff and students wanting to remove or rid the universities of historical buildings, monuments and in a minority of cases, books, because the characters or individuals don’t fit today’s standards or their standards.

They’re making the debate overly simplistic, so they can get people agreeing with them and defending them on it without even reading the proposal or supporting reports ;) Its on the government website and the reports are in the footnotes.

You said universities were really difficult places to be. They’re not, people actually feel more protected at universities in terms of free speech than they do in general society. Im not talking about left or right wing, I don’t think this debate is left or right wing anyway apart from for people trying to turn it into one. Its partly an intellectual one and also a debate about universities own abilities to self govern things like this, which they’ve been able to absolutely fine for years. I would always want an academic to make a decision on the merits of a speaker rather than a politician.

If universities were succumbing to the whims of the more vitriolic aspects of their student unions then I’d agree to an extent with a change. They aren’t though.

The wider issue for you is partly why I don’t want it. Like I said earlier, it is going against the fundamental principle of academic freedom.

 

[Ban-jani]

They’re making the debate overly simplistic, so they can get people agreeing with them and defending them on it without even reading the proposal or supporting reports ;) Its on the government website and the reports are in the footnotes.

You said universities were really difficult places to be. They’re not, people actually feel more protected at universities in terms of free speech than they do in general society. Im not talking about left or right wing, I don’t think this debate is left or right wing anyway apart from for people trying to turn it into one. Its partly an intellectual one and also a debate about universities own abilities to self govern things like this, which they’ve been able to absolutely fine for years. I would always want an academic to make a decision on the merits of a speaker rather than a politician.

The wider issue for you is partly why I don’t want it. Like I said earlier, it is going against the fundamental principle of academic freedom.

There’s several questions there you haven’t answered so I will go and find the reports myself, it does sound to me it’s your opinion based on what the report states, for example you thinking 53 speakers being disapproved is a small number, when I don’t think it is. Do you not appreciate that the government, whoever is in power and whatever the policy is, will simplify it to the public, whilst publishing the reports behind the message, rather than spending hours talking about the data in briefings and interviews?

Are people in universities feeling more protected because they have become echo chambers? With a minority of conservative students being too afraid to stick their heads out? A survey asking this question would produce results students feel safe but that’s because they are creating environments where they don’t have to hear opposing views, couple that with their lecturers agreeing with them, it’s a perfect storm for leaving an impression on young adults.

Academic freedom is never going to happen and never should, in our schools and universities. Would you grant academic freedom to school teaching its students the most extreme forms of Wahhabism, or would you want the state to intervene?

I have purposefully given an extreme example there to show the state has a responsibility to monitor and affect what is taught in our education system.

If this truly isn’t a left vs right issue, then the new legislation will ensure both sides get to speak on campus and that is a good thing. The whole reason I come on this sub forum is to talk to people I disagree with, which is about 99% of posters. The sad thing is, those further to the left just put right wing posters on ignore and spend all day reposting off Twitter, liking each other’s posts, without accepting a differing view. That’s my worry, that this behaviour is manifesting elsewhere and is happening in universities.

These students will then be entering the workplace and they’ll ruin it, if they don’t grow up pretty quickly.

As I’ve said, I have family at university, including my sister and whilst she’s a left winger, she has concerns too and has told me her university has zero right wing views, no students, no lecturers, no speakers, nothing. The first time she had a proper conversation with a conservative, when she actually had developed an interest in politics, was with me after she came home for Christmas during her first year.

Edit: I’ve just heard David Davis claim a report states we have the 2nd lowest level of academic freedom in Europe and that is stemming from the universities themselves - interesting if true.

 

[meltonblue]

I’m deliberately not answering them as I want you to read the supporting reports yourself and the countering views, otherwise it has potential to turn into a google argument when that’s not really the point.

No, my argument isn’t based on the reports, more just saying the government using elements of those reports and nothing else shows how flimsy their stance is on it.

On the simplification, no I disagree completely. There has to be comprehensive supporting documentation that validates implementing new legislation, that’s what our system of government has always relied on. The rhetoric to the public might change but there’s always been that foundation.

On academic freedom, it has been written into our legislature for years. There is alternative legislation that already covers the extreme points like what you’re talking about there. To flip that around, are you saying a politician is better equipped to decide what an academic should be teaching or which speakers are relevant than the academic? There should be as little state intervention in further education as possible.

On your left v right, I get the concern and the last thing I’m advocating is shutting down either side of the debate. My argument is universities are doing that anyway - just look at the Oxford response to their student union or Cardiff’s support of Greer in the prior example. That it makes the legislation ok if they’re doing it anyway isn’t the point - it’s the movement of the decision away from academics to politicians and the implications of that.

On whether conservatives feel more shut down than others, then I imagine they do, the same
has been said in general society too.

Students won’t ruin anything, particularly at ones like Oxbridge, they’ll have a few years of left leaning activism and then the majority flip as soon as they get into the workplace just as they ever have done.

If your sister isn’t taking a course that has anything to do with politics, then are you talking about she’s getting that from the university itself or her fellow students? Even at oxbridge, the vast majority of students don’t attend any of the talks anyway, which is another reason this is being built up to be much more than it is.

 

[Ban-jani]

I’m deliberately not answering them as I want you to read the supporting reports yourself and the countering views, otherwise it has potential to turn into a google argument when that’s not really the point.

No, my argument isn’t based on the reports, more just saying the government using elements of those reports and nothing else shows how flimsy their stance is on it.

On the simplification, no I disagree completely. There has to be comprehensive supporting documentation that validates implementing new legislation, that’s what our system of government has always relied on. The rhetoric to the public might change but there’s always been that foundation.

On academic freedom, it has been written into our legislature for years. There is alternative legislation that already covers the extreme points like what you’re talking about there. To flip that around, are you saying a politician is better equipped to decide what an academic should be teaching or which speakers are relevant than the academic? There should be as little state intervention in further education as possible.

On your left v right, I get the concern and the last thing I’m advocating is shutting down either side of the debate. My argument is universities are doing that anyway - just look at the Oxford response to their student union or Cardiff’s support of Greer in the prior example. That it makes the legislation ok if they’re doing it anyway isn’t the point - it’s the movement of the decision away from academics to politicians and the implications of that.

On whether conservatives feel more shut down than others, then I imagine they do, the same
has been said in general society too.

Students won’t ruin anything, particularly at ones like Oxbridge, they’ll have a few years of left leaning activism and then the majority flip as soon as they get into the workplace just as they ever have done.

If your sister isn’t taking a course that has anything to do with politic, then are you talking about she’s getting that from the university itself or her fellow students? Even at oxbridge, the vast majority of students don’t attend any of the talks anyway, which is another reason this is being built up to be much more than it is.

I will read them tomorrow and come back to you.

On the communication, isn’t that what they should have done, published detailed and comprehensive reports and are relaying it in simpler form when verbally communicating it? The reports are there to see and I will see them.

I am saying an elected politician, who is a appointed into an education role as Minister should be able to influence what is in the curriculum at all levels of education. Not to the degree of completely overruling an academic and inflicting party political propaganda or a rewriting of history, there’s a fine balance but there needs to be a check on what is put forward by the academic and that needs to come from the state to some degree. Let’s just say a Professor called rascal wanted to indoctrinate an entire class of 30 that capitalism was the route of all evil and those on the right are class traitors, then there needs to be a check on that power and if the head of the university agreed with the academic, it’s effectively poisoning the mind of that child/young adult. Now you’ve mentioned legislation to stop this but it could be done subtlety and every part of the course could be manipulative into one direction.

Again, this is an extreme example but I’m using it to state that if we allow total biases from academics to manifest in their students, it’ll worsen society and isn’t fair on the student.

My sister studied history and is now doing a masters in law. She herself, said the university itself, is biased towards her way of thinking and she hasn’t met a conservative there in the time she’s been at the university.

She wasn’t always objective about it, the first political discussion we had she was incredibly offended at what I said and accused me of all sorts, and it was pretty tame conservative stuff that you, as someone more socially liberal, wouldn’t even bat an eyelid at. You know the sort of view that the conventional family unit is king in society and should be treated as such, which she thought was the evil patriarchy.

She has since grown up now thankfully and whilst she’s on the left, she appreciates opposing views.

 

[meltonblue]

Sorry, just to add, on the shutting out or ignoring the other point of view, I will never advocate that, be it on here or anywhere. That’s been one of the biggest issues with the political discourse in this country in the last few years.

The problem with it is whoever does it pushes the other more into their entrenched position and both sides of the debate (and the political parties representing them) have been more than happy to exploit it. This to me is an example of it, albeit just the foundations.

The only way to get past it is promoting education and academics. Teaching isn’t and should not be about influencing behaviour or opinion. It’s about giving people all the tools to then be able to formulate their own opinion themselves. At further education levels, that cannot happen with political influence.

 

[Ban-jani]

Sorry, just to add, on the shutting out or ignoring the other point of view, I will never advocate that, be it on here or anywhere. That’s been one of the biggest issues with the political discourse in this country in the last few years.

The problem with it is whoever does it pushes the other more into their entrenched position and both sides of the debate (and the political parties representing them) have been more than happy to exploit it. This to me is an example of it, albeit just the foundations.

The only way to get past it is promoting education and academics. Teaching isn’t and should not be about influencing behaviour or opinion. It’s about giving people all the tools to then be able to formulate their own opinion themselves. At further education levels, that cannot happen with political influence.

That I agree with entirely.

 

[Vic]

I will read them tomorrow and come back to you.

On the communication, isn’t that what they should have done, published detailed and comprehensive reports and are relaying it in simpler form when verbally communicating it? The reports are there to see and I will see them.

I am saying an elected politician, who is a appointed into an education role as Minister should be able to influence what is in the curriculum at all levels of education. Not to the degree of completely overruling an academic and inflicting party political propaganda or a rewriting of history, there’s a fine balance but there needs to be a check on what is put forward by the academic and that needs to come from the state to some degree. Let’s just say a Professor called rascal wanted to indoctrinate an entire class of 30 that capitalism was the route of all evil and those on the right are class traitors, then there needs to be a check on that power and if the head of the university agreed with the academic, it’s effectively poisoning the mind of that child/young adult. Now you’ve mentioned legislation to stop this but it could be done subtlety and every part of the course could be manipulative into one direction.

Again, this is an extreme example but I’m using it to state that if we allow total biases from academics to manifest in their students, it’ll worsen society and isn’t fair on the student.

My sister studied history and is now doing a masters in law. She herself, said the university itself, is biased towards her way of thinking and she hasn’t met a conservative there in the time she’s been at the university.

She wasn’t always objective about it, the first political discussion we had she was incredibly offended at what I said and accused me of all sorts, and it was pretty tame conservative stuff that you, as someone more socially liberal, wouldn’t even bat an eyelid at. You know the sort of view that the conventional family unit is king in society and should be treated as such, which she thought was the evil patriarchy.

She has since grown up now thankfully and whilst she’s on the left, she appreciates opposing views.

It's a straw university argument.

 

[Ban-jani]

It's a straw university argument.

It’s a hypothetical to show why measures are important, I am not saying that is happening, which is what a straw argument is.

 

[meltonblue]

I will read them tomorrow and come back to you.

On the communication, isn’t that what they should have done, published detailed and comprehensive reports and are relaying it in simpler form when verbally communicating it? The reports are there to see and I will see them.

I am saying an elected politician, who is a appointed into an education role as Minister should be able to influence what is in the curriculum at all levels of education. Not to the degree of completely overruling an academic and inflicting party political propaganda or a rewriting of history, there’s a fine balance but there needs to be a check on what is put forward by the academic and that needs to come from the state to some degree. Let’s just say a Professor called rascal wanted to indoctrinate an entire class of 30 that capitalism was the route of all evil and those on the right are class traitors, then there needs to be a check on that power and if the head of the university agreed with the academic, it’s effectively poisoning the mind of that child/young adult. Now you’ve mentioned legislation to stop this but it could be done subtlety and every part of the course could be manipulative into one direction.

Again, this is an extreme example but I’m using it to state that if we allow total biases from academics to manifest in their students, it’ll worsen society and isn’t fair on the student.

My sister studied history and is now doing a masters in law. She herself, said the university itself, is biased towards her way of thinking and she hasn’t met a conservative there in the time she’s been at the university.

She wasn’t always objective about it, the first political discussion we had she was incredibly offended at what I said and accused me of all sorts, and it was pretty tame conservative stuff that you, as someone more socially liberal, wouldn’t even bat an eyelid at. You know the sort of view that the conventional family unit is king in society and should be treated as such, which she thought was the evil patriarchy.

She has since grown up now thankfully and whilst she’s on the left, she appreciates opposing views.

Well if she’s doing a masters in law, I’m not surprised she’s not met an advocate of this particular government to be fair! ;)

On communication, absolutely. That’s why I have such an issue with this government though (as plenty of centrist conservatives do too). They’re so bad at justifying their position and seeking to avoid scrutiny that their motives always have to be questioned. If they had a decent argument, they wouldn’t need to be as deliberately disingenuous as they always are.


On the third paragraph, what the university should do, and they do do, is be clear on who their lecturers are and what their teachings on the subject will cover. It’s higher education, they should not follow a set criteria, that’s not what the good universities in particular are there for. You enrol at Oxford because you want to hear Dawkins thoughts specifically for example.

It isn’t in university’s interests to take it to the extreme, people just won’t go and it goes against their own principles of independent thought and what academia is in general.

The question is ultimately who do you believe is best placed to ensure minimal political influence in further education - the academics or the political power in charge at the time. Like I said, there’s a reason even conservatives are critical of increasing political influence in this space and see it as a non issue.

 

[BobKowalski]

This is a terrible teribletake.

You don’t think the elected government should be involved in the curriculum and and dialogue that’s permitted - let’s be clear, they aren’t stopping speech, they are going to police those stopping it - in our education institutions, that they fund?

It is the responsibility of the government to ensure our education system is open to differing ideas.

The Chinese government isn’t elected, ours is, that’s the first point. The 2nd point is they aren’t dictating what you can or cannot talk about, they are moderating campuses to make sure different sides of the debate get to speak.

Again, you are creating a straw man. They are not stopping any views, they are stopping people from stopping others giving views.

The left will still get its microphone, quite rightly, and universities will still be swinging to the left, as they always have, what they are doing is ensuring universities also provide a platform for people who want to express conservative views, without being shouted down or attacked.

This annoys you because you don’t want that to happen, it would be better for everyone if you just admitted it.

If universities were right wing and left wing speakers were being stopped from speaking, I’d still support this measure.

The Govt already stops people speaking via the Prevent Program as part of its anti-terrorism strategy, it’s aim is to ‘counter terrorist ideology and challenging those who promote it’. This inevitably has been used to stop or deter Muslim speakers in some cases. Is the Govt going to fine itself for stopping these people from speaking at Universities, or is it simply the Govts way of determining which radicalism is okay in the name of ‘free speech’ and which isn’t? Is radical Christianity okay, but radical Islam not okay? Is the Govt going to insist, on penalty of a fine, that Holocaust denial is okay in the interests of ‘free speech’, but acceptable to deny ‘free speech’ to a speaker arguing the case for the Palestinian people on the grounds it may ‘radicalise’ people?