Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[beninho]

First topic message reminder :

8 bronze badges
The problem states, "If I buy two tickets with different numbers" – msinghal Jul 22 '15 at 6:40
Correct. I just wanted to clarify this explicitly, since this apparently causes the confusion in the internet the OP was writing about... – Bernhard Jul 22 '15 at 7:38
So let me get this right. If I have a 1 in 14 million of chance of winning the lottery, if I buy a further ticket with a different sequence of numbers to the first one for the same draw my chance of winning is slashed to 1 in 7 million? – Rickie Jul 22 '15 at 8:16
Yes, that is correct. – Bernhard Jul 22 '15 at 8:23

[JAS]

Can any of you folks who live in England describe how you feel about the union and whether or not you think of yourself as a unionist?

As a Jock living in England I'm fairly agnostic either way but if pushed one way or the other I'd opt for preserving the union. I have a fair bit of sympathy & empathy with wee Krankies arguments and she puts them across well but ultimately if I still lived back up home I'd vote remain if asked. I think the UK as a union it has aged much much better than the EU is ever likely to.

Sure as a union the UK has had its "issues" in the 18th century and has a bit on ongoing sensitivity in NI. There's also current political tension created by the fact that Scotland & Wales are much more left leaning than England which can ferment resentment (and currently is doing). In historical context though, that should be viewed as a fairly transient position.

In NI however there's a bit of a deeper tension regarding being unionist or not, it's not whether some there want to leave the UK and be independent like Scotland  or Wales but more whether they want to cease to be part of the UK and be part of Ireland instead. It was always delicate balancing act to retain NI as part of the UK, new tensions introduced by Brexit could still turn out to be the catalyst that leads to a very different split.

For all those ongoing tensions the UK carries on and so it should. I do genuinely think for all the flaws we are actually better together. What I think a lot of separatists don't get is that it would be a one way leap, not a separation then creep back a couple of years later saying "Actually that was a Poopie idea, can we come back?"   Something the Brexiteers will also have to confront at some point if they're not already. There are parallels between Scotland wanting to leave the UK and Britain wanting to leave the EU i.e.

A perception of dysfunctional governance not serving the interests of the leaver.

Yes both Westminster and Brussels could be described as dysfunctional.
Yes both bodies could be accused of putting the vested interests of global corporations ahead of ordinary people (thats true pretty much the world over though, the resentment of that is what Trump tapped into, it's called neoliberalism and ordinary working people haven't worked out yet what to do to stop it from acting against their interests - Trump clearly wasn't the answer though and neither is carving up unions of different shapes and sizes.

Comparing UK and the EU is just a theoretical parallel though, When you start breaking that down the arguments kind of separate somewhat.

[McLaren]

:laugh: I'm a Unionist as a matter of axiom. I think we're better together and the world is basically getting smaller. I think we should be in the EU for similar reasons. We understand other cultures a lot more than in the past, so you'd think we'd all be coming together more. Spitting dummies out and wanting "Freedom!" (to be shouted in a Scottish accent) is too often childish and an outcome hijacked by narcissist politicians.

This is pretty much my position but living in Scotland it is quite obvious why being part of the UK benefits us, I guess I am just wondering what benefits do English residents feel they get from having Wales, Scotland and NI hanging on? I just doubt that large swathes of England's population see the benefits of unionism through the eyes of altruism, in that they worry about the living standards of the Scotland, Wales and NI if they were to go it alone.

In my own case for example I would not put up a fight if NI wanted to become part of Ireland again. And I am not really sure why I wouldn't care, I think I would just be ok with that if they wanted to do it and no one really comes to any harm.

And it is that sort of thought that makes it hard to call unionism a large part of my politics regardless of the fact I would prefer the UK to remain together.  

However, I am both heartily sick of the petty nationalism (from all sides).........

+1.

Growing up I think one of my most naive ideas was that "old fashioned" illogical ideas like nationalism wouldn't be part of the political landscape of my adulthood.

[McLaren]

As a Jock living in England I'm fairly agnostic either way but if pushed one way or the other I'd opt for preserving the union. I have a fair bit of sympathy & empathy with wee Krankies arguments and she puts them across well but ultimately if I still lived back up home I'd vote remain if asked. I think the UK as a union it has aged much much better than the EU is ever likely to.

There is only one model of Scottish independence I support at it involves Scotland becoming a vassal state to the EU. I have no time for the nationalism of wee Krankie.




But in general, what do you think the average English person thinks they are getting out of Scotland, NI and Wales being part of the UK?

[JAS]

As a Jock living in England I'm fairly agnostic either way but if pushed one way or the other I'd opt for preserving the union. I have a fair bit of sympathy & empathy with wee Krankies arguments and she puts them across well but ultimately if I still lived back up home I'd vote remain if asked. I think the UK as a union it has aged much much better than the EU is ever likely to.

There is only one model of Scottish independence I support at it involves Scotland becoming a vassal state to the EU. I have no time for the nationalism of wee Krankie.




But in general, what do you think the average English person thinks they are getting out of Scotland, NI and Wales being part of the UK?

What do most think they're getting?....Nothing!!
What are they actually getting?...
Somewhere colder and wetter to go holidays without a visa
Additional cultural enrichment and diversity
...I'm not selling it very well am i? :-p

Wee Krankie does need to be careful as well because there may come a point where there is a groundswell of opinion in England that says...you know what...give us a vote on whether we want to keep you or not!!

[navyblueshorts]

...I guess I am just wondering what benefits do English residents feel they get from having Wales, Scotland and NI hanging on? I just doubt that large swathes of England's population see the benefits of unionism through the eyes of altruism, in that they worry about the living standards of the Scotland, Wales and NI if they were to go it alone....

For me, I appreciate and realise that all parts of the UK & NI have contributed enormously to what we can look back on and be somewhat proud of in many places.

I think it's possibly too late now (mainly because too many ignored its necessity), but there should be (or have been) a serious and extensive discussion about a UK Constitution (formal, that is) and whether the current UK model is fit for the 21st century and beyond. Federal model? Unweighted representation (cf. situation now) in Westminster a la US Senate for NI, Wales and Scotland - 150 MPs each, regardless of populations? Home rule? I think the horses have bolted now and it's too late for any of this sort of debate.

[JAS]

...I guess I am just wondering what benefits do English residents feel they get from having Wales, Scotland and NI hanging on? I just doubt that large swathes of England's population see the benefits of unionism through the eyes of altruism, in that they worry about the living standards of the Scotland, Wales and NI if they were to go it alone....

For me, I appreciate and realise that all parts of the UK & NI have contributed enormously to what we can look back on and be somewhat proud of in many places.

I think it's possibly too late now (mainly because too many ignored its necessity), but there should be (or have been) a serious and extensive discussion about a UK Constitution (formal, that is) and whether the current UK model is fit for the 21st century and beyond. Federal model? Unweighted representation (cf. situation now) in Westminster a la US Senate for NI, Wales and Scotland - 150 MPs each, regardless of populations? Home rule? I think the horses have bolted now and it's too late for any of this sort of debate.

Yes looking back you'd have to say that the union has been an enormous success and of mutual benefit, however that is looking back. I think there's a bit more of a problem for many looking forward, there is no great vision of a forward looking United Kingdom over the next 10, 20,50 years. All people can see are negatives (and there are a lot of them) and when people see negatives they become more insular and inward looking, a lot of it is not the UKs fault but for many, especially on the fringes, the constitution of the UK, rightly or wrongly, will get the blame. The UK govt currently looks like it will take the ostrich approach in the hope that it will eventually go away...it won't.

The reason Britain became great is that it embraced and pretty much drove the industrial revolution in the 18th/19th century. We saw opportunity and made the most of it as a nation. That was great (not perfect - but great) for the time but the 21st century is a very very different landscape. There are still some opportunities but there are also now threats to our prosperity, yes from more intense competition from other states, some of whom don't neccessarily want to play by established international conventions but the main threats to a decent & prosperous society are powerful global companies. Most care not about a decent Society but about the bottom line of their balance sheet. A lot of companies have been allowed to become more powerful than most nations. That horse has now also bolted, no longer can governments beat them with a large stick into submission. Much of their dubious practices (e.g. exploiting child labour in the 3rd world, environmental destruction) are excused because the pension values of millions are invested in those bottom lines and therefore share values.

So things like nationhood and the forming or breaking up of political and economic unions are really a distraction. Much more important are the relationships between Government and big business. Successful governments/countries in this century will be the ones who get that government/big business relationship right, Not only does the relationship have to be right, the masses that vote for governments have to see it as being right....and that will be the tricky bit!! People instinctively know it's not right at the moment but there's so much distractional noise out there that they know somethings not right but they cant pinpoint what.

[navyblueshorts]

...I guess I am just wondering what benefits do English residents feel they get from having Wales, Scotland and NI hanging on? I just doubt that large swathes of England's population see the benefits of unionism through the eyes of altruism, in that they worry about the living standards of the Scotland, Wales and NI if they were to go it alone....

For me, I appreciate and realise that all parts of the UK & NI have contributed enormously to what we can look back on and be somewhat proud of in many places.

I think it's possibly too late now (mainly because too many ignored its necessity), but there should be (or have been) a serious and extensive discussion about a UK Constitution (formal, that is) and whether the current UK model is fit for the 21st century and beyond. Federal model? Unweighted representation (cf. situation now) in Westminster a la US Senate for NI, Wales and Scotland - 150 MPs each, regardless of populations? Home rule? I think the horses have bolted now and it's too late for any of this sort of debate.

Yes looking back you'd have to say that the union has been an enormous success and of mutual benefit, however that is looking back. I think there's a bit more of a problem for many looking forward, there is no great vision of a forward looking United Kingdom over the next 10, 20,50 years. All people can see are negatives (and there are a lot of them) and when people see negatives they become more insular and inward looking, a lot of it is not the UKs fault but for many, especially on the fringes, the constitution of the UK, rightly or wrongly, will get the blame. The UK govt currently looks like it will take the ostrich approach in the hope that it will eventually go away...it won't.

The reason Britain became great is that it embraced and pretty much drove the industrial revolution in the 18th/19th century. We saw opportunity and made the most of it as a nation. That was great (not perfect - but great)  for the time but the 21st century is a very very different landscape. There are still some opportunities but there are also now threats to our prosperity, yes from more intense competition from other states, some of whom don't neccessarily want to play by established international conventions but the main threats to a decent & prosperous society are powerful global companies. Most care not about a decent Society but about the bottom line of their balance sheet. A lot of companies have been allowed to become more powerful than most nations. That horse has now also bolted, no longer can governments beat them with a large stick into submission. Much of their dubious practices (e.g. exploiting child labour in the 3rd world, environmental destruction) are excused because the pension values of millions are invested in those bottom lines and therefore share values.

So things like nationhood and the forming or breaking up of political and economic unions are really a distraction. Much more important are the relationships between Government and big business. Successful governments/countries in this century will be the ones who get that government/big business relationship right, Not only does the relationship have to be right, the masses that vote for governments have to see it as being right....and that will be the tricky bit!! People instinctively know it's not right at the moment but there's so much distractional noise out there that they know somethings not right but they cant pinpoint what.

Good post .

Re. large corporations and their influence - the more things change, the more things stay the same. See the East India Trading Company...

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1360720263588020232?s=19

I'm trying to understand this, though struggling. Is threatening to fine people with a different view or opinion and claiming its defending freedom of speech, not basically just blocking their freedom of speech? Or something like that. And, why us it wrong to look at our countries past and not celebrate everything.

[McLaren]

Ben

I think most people just struggle to see the difference between freedom of speech and the right to a platform. You can say what you want but you can't always be guaranteed other people will put you on their platform.

[I'm never wrong]

Ben

I think most people just struggle to see the difference between freedom of speech and the right to a platform. You can say what you want but you can't always be guaranteed other people will put you on their platform.

So would this be a basic example of what the bill is supposed to prevent? Conservative students at a University wants to have a lecture by a Tory politician on the student premises. Student Union forbids it as the Union committee is left wing.

[Soul Requiem]

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1360720263588020232?s=19

I'm trying to understand this, though struggling. Is threatening to fine people with a different view or opinion and claiming its defending freedom of speech, not basically just blocking their freedom of speech? Or something like that. And, why us it wrong to look at our countries past and not celebrate everything.

Anything that comes down on the universities for their absurdities is fine by me, perhaps understand that they are the problem but alas you don't have the ability to do that.

[McLaren]

INW

I think you might be one of those people I am talking about. If a student union has the authority to chose who gives lectures at particular venues then those not invited to speak cannot complain on free speech grounds.

No one has the right to speak at any venue just because they want to.

In your example the conservative students would either have to persuade the student union to allow the speaker or rent their own space.

[Soul Requiem]

Ben

I think most people just struggle to see the difference between freedom of speech and the right to a platform. You can say what you want but you can't always be guaranteed other people will put you on their platform.

So would this be a basic example of what the bill is supposed to prevent? Conservative students at a University wants to have a lecture by a Tory politician on the student premises. Student Union forbids it as the Union committee is left wing.

That will be ok because silencing right wing voices is ok. The left seem under the impression that they should be heard but nobody else. As a vocal former member of the young conservatives I was often admonished at university because of it.

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1360720263588020232?s=19

I'm trying to understand this, though struggling. Is threatening to fine people with a different view or opinion and claiming its defending freedom of speech, not basically just blocking their freedom of speech? Or something like that. And, why us it wrong to look at our countries past and not celebrate everything.

Anything that comes down on the universities for their absurdities is fine by me, perhaps understand that they are the problem but alas you don't have the ability to do that.

But does it all make sense to you. Isnt it just reverse to what they want? It's all just a bit thought police, isn't it. You shoukd do as we say or else. Again, another case of the weird culture war. All pretty petty.

[beninho]

Ben

I think most people just struggle to see the difference between freedom of speech and the right to a platform. You can say what you want but you can't always be guaranteed other people will put you on their platform.

So would this be a basic example of what the bill is supposed to prevent? Conservative students at a University wants to have a lecture by a Tory politician on the student premises. Student Union forbids it as the Union committee is left wing.

That will be ok because silencing right wing voices is ok. The left seem under the impression that they should be heard but nobody else. As a vocal former member of the young conservatives I was often admonished at university because of it.

I honestly wish the right wing were silenced. Its all you hear in the media etc. Very annoying.

[navyblueshorts]

INW

I think you might be one of those people I am talking about. If a student union has the authority to chose who gives lectures at particular venues then those not invited to speak cannot complain on free speech grounds.

No one has the right to speak at any venue just because they want to.

In your example the conservative students would either have to persuade the student union to allow the speaker or rent their own space.

You're conveniently(?) forgetting that it's surely incumbent on these sort of institutions to present opportunities to speakers from both sides of the political divide. In addition, surely you defeat views you personally disagree with by letting them be aired and then demolishing them w/ a better argument. Yeah, I know about social media etc, but Universities are hardly that and are built on an ethos of open debate/discussion.
Leftist stifling of discussion, just because they don't like the content or speaker, is pathetic.

[navyblueshorts]

Ben

I think most people just struggle to see the difference between freedom of speech and the right to a platform. You can say what you want but you can't always be guaranteed other people will put you on their platform.

So would this be a basic example of what the bill is supposed to prevent? Conservative students at a University wants to have a lecture by a Tory politician on the student premises. Student Union forbids it as the Union committee is left wing.

That will be ok because silencing right wing voices is ok. The left seem under the impression that they should be heard but nobody else. As a vocal former member of the young conservatives I was often admonished at university because of it.

 I honestly wish the right wing were silenced. Its all you hear in the media etc. Very annoying.

But not on social media, eh? There may be abhorrent right wing views on that sort of platform, but the horrendous leftish group think that dominates too much conversation is awful.

[beninho]

I think social media is just about what you look for. There's just enough right wing as left wing. The trick that the right wing seem to have pulled is make people think they are a minority.

[navyblueshorts]

I think social media is just about what you look for. There's just enough right wing as left wing. The trick that the right wing seem to have pulled is make people think they are a minority.  

Not really. Only the wet blankets such as Trump et al. Still, maybe it's not so much about right or left - more about an apparent majority in any arena (maybe they're just vocal?) shouting down/not listening to any minority opinion.

[McLaren]

You're conveniently(?) forgetting that it's surely incumbent on these sort of institutions to present opportunities to speakers from both sides of the political divide.

Some people might think it would be desirable for those sort of institutions to have speakers from both sides but that doesn't have anything to do with any individuals free speech.

An institution choosing not to let you speak is not a free speech issue.

[navyblueshorts]

You're conveniently(?) forgetting that it's surely incumbent on these sort of institutions to present opportunities to speakers from both sides of the political divide.

Some people might think it would be desirable for those sort of institutions to have speakers from both sides but that doesn't have anything to do with any individuals free speech.

An institution choosing not to let you speak is not a free speech issue.

Arguable. Especially so if you're originally booked and then 'cancelled'. Hence the name. In addition, there needs to be seen to be balance.

[beninho]

I think social media is just about what you look for. There's just enough right wing as left wing. The trick that the right wing seem to have pulled is make people think they are a minority.  

Not really. Only the wet blankets such as Trump et al. Still, maybe it's not so much about right or left - more about an apparent majority in any arena (maybe they're just vocal?) shouting down/not listening to any minority opinion.

For some reason the vocal minorities are taken very seriously. It's like when someone is interviewed they feel the need for sone balance, even if its a ridiculous view. I think Brexit is something when the vocal minority has been listened to. Do we think every brexit voter wanted some of the things that have come out so far. The musician issues, NI, harder for businesses.

[McLaren]

Navy

Free speech is about saying whatever you want without you falling foul of the law. With the obvious exceptions.

The right to free speech is getting complety mixed up with the right to a platform in this discussion.

You don't have the right to a platform you have the right to avoid prosecution for what you say. And in the UK there are actually quite a few exceptions to that.

And another thing that confuses people about free speech is that it does not guarantee you any avoidance of repercussions or consequences.

[beninho]

That's something that I find strange, how people think free speech is free of consequences

[I'm never wrong]

The right to free speech is getting complety mixed up with the right to a platform in this discussion.

So going back to my original argument Mac, if a legitimate group of students wants to hold a meeting in the student union, and the Union gives access to legitimate groups to hold meetings in their Union, how can they stop a meeting of Conservative students wishing to hear from a Tory politician?

[beninho]

The right to free speech is getting complety mixed up with the right to a platform in this discussion.

So going back to my original argument Mac, if a legitimate group of students wants to hold a meeting in the student union, and the Union gives access to legitimate groups to hold meetings in their Union, how can they stop a meeting of Conservative students wishing to hear from a Tory politician?

They shouldn't.

[McLaren]

INW

I answered that.

If you need it again.

In your example the conservative students would either have to persuade the student union to allow the speaker or rent their own space.

You would have to know the constitution of the Student Union and how decisions about holding lectures is made. Political stance isn't a protected class under discrimination legislation so it will presumably come down to how the union is set up to decide it's schedule. As I said before the Tory students would have to apply and set out their case. If they are knocked back, then so be it. Make sure you get more Tory students on the Unions board so that future decisions can go your way.

[I'm never wrong]

The right to free speech is getting complety mixed up with the right to a platform in this discussion.

So going back to my original argument Mac, if a legitimate group of students wants to hold a meeting in the student union, and the Union gives access to legitimate groups to hold meetings in their Union, how can they stop a meeting of Conservative students wishing to hear from a Tory politician?

They shouldn't.

Then this is what the original post is abiut; it's to stop organisations No Platforming people fir no reason.

[JAS]

INW

I think you might be one of those people I am talking about. If a student union has the authority to chose who gives lectures at particular venues then those not invited to speak cannot complain on free speech grounds.

No one has the right to speak at any venue just because they want to.

In your example the conservative students would either have to persuade the student union to allow the speaker or rent their own space.

You're conveniently(?) forgetting that it's surely incumbent on these sort of institutions to present opportunities to speakers from both sides of the political divide. In addition, surely you defeat views you personally disagree with by letting them be aired and then demolishing them w/ a better argument. Yeah, I know about social media etc, but Universities are hardly that and are built on an ethos of open debate/discussion.
Leftist stifling of discussion, just because they don't like the content or speaker, is pathetic.

Yup!! I seriously worry about why those on the left would wish to stifle debate. For goodness sake it cant be that hard to let the Loony Right rant away then demolish their arguments. In reference to the title of the 1978 Clash Album....Give 'em Enough Rope!! Universities are probably the LAST place where any sort of debate should be silenced.

Having said that, yes, with free speech comes responsibilities and consequences.
Trump was free to say what he said just up the road from the Capitol on 6th Jan, however with freedom comes responsibilities and then inevitably consequences. Sometimes you shouldn't just because you can.

[beninho]

The right to free speech is getting complety mixed up with the right to a platform in this discussion.

So going back to my original argument Mac, if a legitimate group of students wants to hold a meeting in the student union, and the Union gives access to legitimate groups to hold meetings in their Union, how can they stop a meeting of Conservative students wishing to hear from a Tory politician?

They shouldn't.

Then this is what the original post is abiut; it's to stop organisations No Platforming people fir no reason.

But I'm an all party report it said this isn't actually an issue. Also it says that groups aren't obliged to book specific speakers, or refuse to share a platform with speakers or even cancel speakers. Who is it defending free speech if you are blocking people's rights of freedom anyway?

[beninho]

INW

I think you might be one of those people I am talking about. If a student union has the authority to chose who gives lectures at particular venues then those not invited to speak cannot complain on free speech grounds.

No one has the right to speak at any venue just because they want to.

In your example the conservative students would either have to persuade the student union to allow the speaker or rent their own space.

You're conveniently(?) forgetting that it's surely incumbent on these sort of institutions to present opportunities to speakers from both sides of the political divide. In addition, surely you defeat views you personally disagree with by letting them be aired and then demolishing them w/ a better argument. Yeah, I know about social media etc, but Universities are hardly that and are built on an ethos of open debate/discussion.
Leftist stifling of discussion, just because they don't like the content or speaker, is pathetic.

Yup!! I seriously worry about why those on the left would wish to stifle debate. For goodness sake it cant be that hard to let the Loony Right rant away then demolish their arguments. In reference to the title of the 1978 Clash Album....Give 'em Enough Rope!! Universities are probably the LAST place where any sort of debate should be silenced.

Having said that, yes, with free speech comes responsibilities and consequences.
Trump was free to say what he said just up the road from the Capitol on 6th Jan, however with freedom comes responsibilities and then inevitably consequences. Sometimes you shouldn't just because you can.

It seems that debate isn't being stiffled in universities, but its just all part of a culture war to get people to carry on engaging with the war on woke. People lap it up.

[beninho]

Does anyone not like pringles?

[McLaren]

Are some of you on the wind up?

How many times can it be said that who a student union chooses to platform or not is nothing to do with free speech. It is a conversation about what counts as healthy debate. No ones rights have been encroached by this issue.

[Soul Requiem]

Are some of you on the wind up?

How many times can it be said that who a student union chooses to platform or not is nothing to do with free speech. It is a conversation about what counts as healthy debate. No ones rights have been encroached by this issue.

In the context of a university yes they have, healthy open debate is part of free speech.

[McLaren]

Soul

Has your freedom of speech been encroached by you not having a newspaper column to express your views?

[I'm never wrong]

INW

I answered that.

If you need it again.

In your example the conservative students would either have to persuade the student union to allow the speaker or rent their own space.

You would have to know the constitution of the Student Union and how decisions about holding lectures is made. Political stance isn't a protected class under discrimination legislation so it will presumably come down to how the union is set up to decide it's schedule. As I said before the Tory students would have to apply and set out their case. If they are knocked back, then so be it. Make sure you get more Tory students on the Unions board so that future decisions can go your way.

Mac, I doubt very much a Student Union could have a constitution that would allow them to no platform a speaker just for his (non extremist) political views. I don't think the University would allow it. If Tory students want to have a speaker they should be allowed just as much as any other political speaker.

And also Mac, you are making assumptions about my political affiliations. I am using Tory students as an example.

[McLaren]

Read my post again. You are arguing with what you think you read.

[Soul Requiem]

Soul

Has your freedom of speech been encroached by you not having a newspaper column to express your views?

Are you seriously trying to equate universities with newspapers?

Universities are a forum for higher learning and that should include all voices having the opportunity to be heard not just the ones you agree with.

[beninho]

I'm trying to read about this free speech champion, and seeing what examples may be given for the reason. One seems to be that Amber Rudd was booked and she was cancelled by the people who booked her. Is that a breach of free speech? Not sure. Read something about people writing letters against transphobia, which seems fine to me.

Also it says they will defend people sacked due to their views, surely we gave laws for that anyway.

Also it's about stopping rewriting Britain's history

All reports say its the governments war on woke, so basically it's just an aim of pandering to it's supporters.

Seens like a huge waste of time.

[beninho]

It's also about stopping unlawful blocking of free speech, so basically sonething that is already covered in law.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

Free speech is about saying whatever you want without you falling foul of the law. With the obvious exceptions.

The right to free speech is getting complety mixed up with the right to a platform in this discussion.

You don't have the right to a platform you have the right to avoid prosecution for what you say. And in the UK there are actually quite a few exceptions to that.

And another thing that confuses people about free speech is that it does not guarantee you any avoidance of repercussions or consequences.

What part of UK universities being taxpayer-funded and based on an ethos of equal opportunities for debate did you miss? It is not a forum where some left-wing cretins get to no-platform people. It's also worse when previously booked speakers are 'cancelled' because some wet weekend of a twit doesn't like something a potential speaker has said in the past. You're missing the point here re. universities.

[navyblueshorts]

That's something that I find strange, how people think free speech is free of consequences

Some think that. To be clear, I never suggested that and assumed it to be axiomatic. You can say whatever the heck you like, but there could be all sorts of consequences depending on context, platform etc.

[navyblueshorts]

Soul

Has your freedom of speech been encroached by you not having a newspaper column to express your views?

Whoosh! Point and context go flying over your head again....

[JAS]

Navy

Free speech is about saying whatever you want without you falling foul of the law. With the obvious exceptions.

The right to free speech is getting complety mixed up with the right to a platform in this discussion.

You don't have the right to a platform you have the right to avoid prosecution for what you say. And in the UK there are actually quite a few exceptions to that.

And another thing that confuses people about free speech is that it does not guarantee you any avoidance of repercussions or consequences.

What part of UK universities being taxpayer-funded and based on an ethos of equal opportunities for debate did you miss? It is not a forum where some left-wing cretins get to no-platform people. It's also worse when previously booked speakers are 'cancelled' because some wet weekend of a twit doesn't like something a potential speaker has said in the past. You're missing the point here re. universities.

Serious question...does the left have a monopoly in this sort of situation or is that just what's being highlighted?.

Obviously freedom of speech is one of the things that separates western democracies from those horrible totalitarian regimes. I mean you'd never get persecuted in mature western democracies even if you held different views to your government...said Senator McCarthy... Never!!

[beninho]

It seems that the no platform stance has been around for years, initially against people like Enoch Powell. Interesting article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/22/university-free-speech-crisis-censorship-enoch-powell

But, this article is from a year ago, so its all just a tory plan in the culture war.

Another interesting article https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/conservative-students-free-speech-universities-no-platforming-student-union-a9072791.html

Still think it's just a created fuss.

[McLaren]

If someone speaks at a University they will not have been invited by the University as a whole. They will be there at the invitation of one of the societies, such as the debating society, political societies, science clubs, sports societies etc.

I don't imagine a whole lot of taxpayer money ends up funding these entities. And who they choose to invite to speak at an event in the societies name is up to them. In most cases events will be organised by a couple of people willing to put in the time, so the decision as to who to invite will be very small scale. And often the preferences of a handful of people at most. As I said somewhere earlier you would have to look at the charters of the student union and the societies themselves to determine whether or not the could invite/not invite a certain individual. If it so happens that the demographic who go to uni is primarily made up of left wing people who want to hear from left wing speakers then so be it. No one's freedom of speech has been denied.

Again, I think everyone other than Ben is really struggling with the concepts in this debate. Could people please go an look up free speech and whether that guarantees a right to whatever platform you want before posting again.

Once people show they understand this then maybe we could move onto what a healthy roster of speakers at a university would look like.

[Soul Requiem]

Those who see the two of you are talking yet more nonsense are struggling with the concepts in this debate. As long as it's left wing students stifling the right it's ok, got it.

[beninho]

Those who see the two of you are talking yet more nonsense are struggling with the concepts in this debate. As long as it's left wing students stifling the right it's ok, got it.

But are they?

[Soul Requiem]

Out of interest did you go to a university?

[beninho]

Out of interest did you go to a university?

Yep, but im 41 years old, so not sure if it's relevant.

[Sponsored content]