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.