FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Freedom of Expression

Jump to newest
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London

Freedom to speak freely, unless it's to criticise the Government, it seems.

Shhhh

'Academic blocked from giving civil service talk because of criticism of government'

“I was told that because I had criticised government policy on social media previously, I wouldn’t be permitted to come and speak,”

“This is a very draconian approach and, if they [the government] are in favour of freedom of expression, then they should stand by that"

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/oct/10/academic-cancelled-from-civil-service-talk-because-of-criticism-of-government#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16654393923896&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fscience%2F2022%2Foct%2F10%2Facademic-cancelled-from-civil-service-talk-because-of-criticism-of-government

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can't have a means of freedom of expression if you can't back it up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Can't have a means of freedom of expression if you can't back it up. "

That doesn't make any sense.

You are saying that you "backup" freedom of expression by not allowing those who disagree with you to speak?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Can't have a means of freedom of expression if you can't back it up.

That doesn't make any sense.

You are saying that you "backup" freedom of expression by not allowing those who disagree with you to speak?"
how you going to back up government control? It makes perfect sense.What is your resistance twords dictatorship? Nothing.. but hope.Prove me wrong...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Can't have a means of freedom of expression if you can't back it up.

That doesn't make any sense.

You are saying that you "backup" freedom of expression by not allowing those who disagree with you to speak? how you going to back up government control? It makes perfect sense.What is your resistance twords dictatorship? Nothing.. but hope.Prove me wrong... "

Yep. Still no idea what you are trying to say because the order of the words genuinely make no sense and I have no idea how they relate to the OP or the article.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Draconian because ? Your statement.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iman2100Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

Hang on a second.

Government policy is delivered by civil servants. They are supposed to have no political opinions and just do their job.

So whilst the speaker is totally free to rant without obstruction anywhere else, the Government, as an employer, has chosen in this case not to inflict this woman's views on its employees.

Would, for example, Vauxhall want a BMW lover to come and tell their workers what crap cars they make? Would McDonalds invite a Greenpeace person in to tell their employees the pain and torture the chickens are subjected to before they cook them.

[NB. The examples are totally false and made up. Don't quote me.]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Hang on a second.

Government policy is delivered by civil servants. They are supposed to have no political opinions and just do their job.

So whilst the speaker is totally free to rant without obstruction anywhere else, the Government, as an employer, has chosen in this case not to inflict this woman's views on its employees.

Would, for example, Vauxhall want a BMW lover to come and tell their workers what crap cars they make? Would McDonalds invite a Greenpeace person in to tell their employees the pain and torture the chickens are subjected to before they cook them.

[NB. The examples are totally false and made up. Don't quote me.] "

Did you read the article? Her presentation was on a different topic.

Some people are perfectly capable of being professional.

The point still remains that this is exactly the definition of hypocrisy. Prevent someone from talking to the civil service because they have an opinion contrary to the Government on a different topic.

Regardless, should the, impartial, civil service not hear opinions contrary to what they have been instructed to do? That should blindly do as their told without risk analysis and an understanding of the consequences?

Interesting approach.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Hang on a second.

Government policy is delivered by civil servants. They are supposed to have no political opinions and just do their job.

So whilst the speaker is totally free to rant without obstruction anywhere else, the Government, as an employer, has chosen in this case not to inflict this woman's views on its employees.

Would, for example, Vauxhall want a BMW lover to come and tell their workers what crap cars they make? Would McDonalds invite a Greenpeace person in to tell their employees the pain and torture the chickens are subjected to before they cook them.

[NB. The examples are totally false and made up. Don't quote me.] "

For your information, BMW and all brands conduct competitor testing. They also tear down competitor vehicles to see how they are built, track their sales and advertising and future product plans. Usually very happy to talk to a competitor. Usually mutually interesting.

You have still missed the point of the OP. Read the article and the implication of the policy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ebjonnsonMan
over a year ago

Maldon

Thankfully there is a political forum on a swingers website.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

Further context: This government has pushed policy of _forcing_ univerities to provide a platform for right wing and/or various-phobic speakers to talk, against the wishes of the students at those universities. The government also has a policy of _discouraging_ universities from allowing left wing and/or minority-supporting speakers from addressing the students.

We now find that the government has a policy of searching the social media of potential advisors to the civil service for any trace of content that may conflict with the opinion of the day of the current cabinet, and preventing these people from providing advice regardless of the nature of their expertise.

When similar policies are enforced by china, russia, north korea, iran, iraq, hungary, sundry african states, sundry south american states, sundry arab states, others that I can't even recall at the moment, these policies are condemned as being dictatorial and against human rights.

We are now in the position that the Conservative and Unionist Party government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is forcing policy of silencing voices against it, and forcing the people to listen to lectures in favour of it.

This is _not_normal_ for a supposedly free and democratic state.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 11/10/22 14:01:57]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Further context: This government has pushed policy of _forcing_ univerities to provide a platform for right wing and/or various-phobic speakers to talk, against the wishes of the students at those universities. The government also has a policy of _discouraging_ universities from allowing left wing and/or minority-supporting speakers from addressing the students.

We now find that the government has a policy of searching the social media of potential advisors to the civil service for any trace of content that may conflict with the opinion of the day of the current cabinet, and preventing these people from providing advice regardless of the nature of their expertise.

When similar policies are enforced by china, russia, north korea, iran, iraq, hungary, sundry african states, sundry south american states, sundry arab states, others that I can't even recall at the moment, these policies are condemned as being dictatorial and against human rights.

We are now in the position that the Conservative and Unionist Party government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is forcing policy of silencing voices against it, and forcing the people to listen to lectures in favour of it.

This is _not_normal_ for a supposedly free and democratic state."

I believe this is an attempt to allow free speech in universities.

The NUS have no platformed people for political reasons, not allowing freedoms. It isn't the number of no platforms, it is the reasoning behind them that is a worry.

It can't be a one way street with the NUS dictating what people can and can't discuss, hear or think, in "safe spaces" that cause confusion and alienation of others to the NUS beliefs.

Are all subjects palatable to all people? Of course not but that should not stop those ideas being reasonably discussed.

People can be lean left or right, it isn't the right thing to do to simply close down those who don't lean in the same direction.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago

Bristol

Universities typically block anyone who they see as not fitting in with their ideologies so the balance need’s redressing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Further context: This government has pushed policy of _forcing_ univerities to provide a platform for right wing and/or various-phobic speakers to talk, against the wishes of the students at those universities. The government also has a policy of _discouraging_ universities from allowing left wing and/or minority-supporting speakers from addressing the students.

We now find that the government has a policy of searching the social media of potential advisors to the civil service for any trace of content that may conflict with the opinion of the day of the current cabinet, and preventing these people from providing advice regardless of the nature of their expertise.

When similar policies are enforced by china, russia, north korea, iran, iraq, hungary, sundry african states, sundry south american states, sundry arab states, others that I can't even recall at the moment, these policies are condemned as being dictatorial and against human rights.

We are now in the position that the Conservative and Unionist Party government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is forcing policy of silencing voices against it, and forcing the people to listen to lectures in favour of it.

This is _not_normal_ for a supposedly free and democratic state.

I believe this is an attempt to allow free speech in universities.

The NUS have no platformed people for political reasons, not allowing freedoms. It isn't the number of no platforms, it is the reasoning behind them that is a worry.

It can't be a one way street with the NUS dictating what people can and can't discuss, hear or think, in "safe spaces" that cause confusion and alienation of others to the NUS beliefs.

Are all subjects palatable to all people? Of course not but that should not stop those ideas being reasonably discussed.

People can be lean left or right, it isn't the right thing to do to simply close down those who don't lean in the same direction."

Perfectly correct to expect difficult topics to be debated in universities. "No platforming" is not a good way to learn. There are also things that are open to very vocal protest or are truly unacceptable.

Holocaust denial

Racism

Sexism

Are they open for "debate".

You have side-stepped the point of the article and the post though.

This is the Government not even allowing someone who has been critical of them to talk on a separate matter to the civil service.

That's an even weirder "no-platform" position although the Government apparently want the opposite when it effects others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Universities typically block anyone who they see as not fitting in with their ideologies so the balance need’s redressing "

...and our Government now blocks anyone who is critical of them. What does that say?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *coptoCouple
over a year ago

Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth

“I believe this is an attempt to allow free speech in universities”

That’s what the hype of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill - now at Committee Stage in the House of Lords - would have us believe. But the reality lies in its aim of “securing freedom of speech within the law”

And who decides what’s “within the law”?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Further context: This government has pushed policy of _forcing_ univerities to provide a platform for right wing and/or various-phobic speakers to talk, against the wishes of the students at those universities. The government also has a policy of _discouraging_ universities from allowing left wing and/or minority-supporting speakers from addressing the students.

We now find that the government has a policy of searching the social media of potential advisors to the civil service for any trace of content that may conflict with the opinion of the day of the current cabinet, and preventing these people from providing advice regardless of the nature of their expertise.

When similar policies are enforced by china, russia, north korea, iran, iraq, hungary, sundry african states, sundry south american states, sundry arab states, others that I can't even recall at the moment, these policies are condemned as being dictatorial and against human rights.

We are now in the position that the Conservative and Unionist Party government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is forcing policy of silencing voices against it, and forcing the people to listen to lectures in favour of it.

This is _not_normal_ for a supposedly free and democratic state.

I believe this is an attempt to allow free speech in universities.

The NUS have no platformed people for political reasons, not allowing freedoms. It isn't the number of no platforms, it is the reasoning behind them that is a worry.

It can't be a one way street with the NUS dictating what people can and can't discuss, hear or think, in "safe spaces" that cause confusion and alienation of others to the NUS beliefs.

Are all subjects palatable to all people? Of course not but that should not stop those ideas being reasonably discussed.

People can be lean left or right, it isn't the right thing to do to simply close down those who don't lean in the same direction.

Perfectly correct to expect difficult topics to be debated in universities. "No platforming" is not a good way to learn. There are also things that are open to very vocal protest or are truly unacceptable.

Holocaust denial

Racism

Sexism

Are they open for "debate".

You have side-stepped the point of the article and the post though.

This is the Government not even allowing someone who has been critical of them to talk on a separate matter to the civil service.

That's an even weirder "no-platform" position although the Government apparently want the opposite when it effects others."

No side stepping. The block for the academic based on her criticism of the government is equally as bad as the NUS no platforming.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"“I believe this is an attempt to allow free speech in universities”

That’s what the hype of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill - now at Committee Stage in the House of Lords - would have us believe. But the reality lies in its aim of “securing freedom of speech within the law”

And who decides what’s “within the law”?"

I think it has more to do with the title of this thread, freedom of expression.

Freedom of speech, is not a platform for creating hate, and it is equally not a platform to make things you don't like hateful and therefore removing the freedoms to discuss or express a view.

good luck reading that! I think I confused myself with that reply

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago

Bristol


"Universities typically block anyone who they see as not fitting in with their ideologies so the balance need’s redressing

...and our Government now blocks anyone who is critical of them. What does that say?"

Have they though? Or is this just a spin on one side or the other sighting a particular person.

There have been loads of cases where speakers have been banned or blocked by universities who just don’t want any other views but their own on campuses.

Or indeed student unions have done the same

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Universities typically block anyone who they see as not fitting in with their ideologies so the balance need’s redressing

...and our Government now blocks anyone who is critical of them. What does that say?

Have they though? Or is this just a spin on one side or the other sighting a particular person.

There have been loads of cases where speakers have been banned or blocked by universities who just don’t want any other views but their own on campuses.

Or indeed student unions have done the same "

Did you, actually, read the article?

The OP is not about what happens on campus. I have some sympathy to not allowing "no platforming" as a principle, although I think that the intent of the legislation is more political.

It is, about the irony of this policy not being applied by the Government to themselves.

That's clear now, right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *asyuk OP   Man
over a year ago

West London


"Further context: This government has pushed policy of _forcing_ univerities to provide a platform for right wing and/or various-phobic speakers to talk, against the wishes of the students at those universities. The government also has a policy of _discouraging_ universities from allowing left wing and/or minority-supporting speakers from addressing the students.

We now find that the government has a policy of searching the social media of potential advisors to the civil service for any trace of content that may conflict with the opinion of the day of the current cabinet, and preventing these people from providing advice regardless of the nature of their expertise.

When similar policies are enforced by china, russia, north korea, iran, iraq, hungary, sundry african states, sundry south american states, sundry arab states, others that I can't even recall at the moment, these policies are condemned as being dictatorial and against human rights.

We are now in the position that the Conservative and Unionist Party government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is forcing policy of silencing voices against it, and forcing the people to listen to lectures in favour of it.

This is _not_normal_ for a supposedly free and democratic state.

I believe this is an attempt to allow free speech in universities.

The NUS have no platformed people for political reasons, not allowing freedoms. It isn't the number of no platforms, it is the reasoning behind them that is a worry.

It can't be a one way street with the NUS dictating what people can and can't discuss, hear or think, in "safe spaces" that cause confusion and alienation of others to the NUS beliefs.

Are all subjects palatable to all people? Of course not but that should not stop those ideas being reasonably discussed.

People can be lean left or right, it isn't the right thing to do to simply close down those who don't lean in the same direction.

Perfectly correct to expect difficult topics to be debated in universities. "No platforming" is not a good way to learn. There are also things that are open to very vocal protest or are truly unacceptable.

Holocaust denial

Racism

Sexism

Are they open for "debate".

You have side-stepped the point of the article and the post though.

This is the Government not even allowing someone who has been critical of them to talk on a separate matter to the civil service.

That's an even weirder "no-platform" position although the Government apparently want the opposite when it effects others.

No side stepping. The block for the academic based on her criticism of the government is equally as bad as the NUS no platforming.

"

Exactly. It doesn't seem like a difficult parallel.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top