The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[DMorgan]

Allow me to open a pandora's box for you, some starter material to bring you up to speed:


http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings/results#.Vj-eF67hDVo

http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings/findings

https://www.thefire.org/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unlearning-Liberty-Campus-Censorship-American/dp/1594037302/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/


These two particular stories are doing this rounds this week, one from UK and one from the US. They are not outliers, they are depressingly common:

http://www.freerangekids.com/mob-of-yale-students-scream-profanities-about-halloween-costume-insensitivity/#.Vj91NOBejsE.twitter

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/why-are-student-union-officials-censoring-criticism-of-islamic-state/


I could go on, it's a subject I've been reading about quite solidly for the last year. In part because I think free speech is one of the most important things we have in modern society, and in part because I find it interesting how all of us don't realise how much of a bubble we live in when it comes to differing opinions.

Interesting that the Uni of Sheffield gets panned on spiked because the student union has a zero tolerance policy to sexual harassment. Those type of policies are chosen by students who are elected by the students. This is the same Union that has been in the top 10 in the country in terms of student satisfaction for the last 10 years and was top of the pile this year with 93% student satisfaction.

To suggest that this organisation is creating a suppressive environment seems like complete bile to me

Disclaimer: As a former Sheffield student I'm obviously biased

[DaveShoelace]

Allow me to open a pandora's box for you, some starter material to bring you up to speed:


http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings/results#.Vj-eF67hDVo

http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings/findings

https://www.thefire.org/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unlearning-Liberty-Campus-Censorship-American/dp/1594037302/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/


These two particular stories are doing this rounds this week, one from UK and one from the US. They are not outliers, they are depressingly common:

http://www.freerangekids.com/mob-of-yale-students-scream-profanities-about-halloween-costume-insensitivity/#.Vj91NOBejsE.twitter

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/why-are-student-union-officials-censoring-criticism-of-islamic-state/


I could go on, it's a subject I've been reading about quite solidly for the last year. In part because I think free speech is one of the most important things we have in modern society, and in part because I find it interesting how all of us don't realise how much of a bubble we live in when it comes to differing opinions.

Interesting that the Uni of Sheffield gets panned on spiked because the student union has a zero tolerance policy to sexual harassment. Those type of policies are chosen by students who are elected by the students. This is the same Union that has been in the top 10 in the country in terms of student satisfaction for the last 10 years and was top of the pile this year with 93% student satisfaction.

To suggest that this organisation is creating a suppressive environment seems like complete bile to me

Disclaimer: As a former Sheffield student I'm obviously biased

Did you click on the button where it said 'anti sexual harrassment'? Its not very clear that its a clickable link.

They are not panning Sheffield Uni because it is anti-sexual harrassment. What they are pointing out is that the universities anti sexual harrassment policy includes banning of certain materials which they believe condones 'rape culture', which is a blanket term used to apply to lots of sexualised media images. In the case of Sheffield Uni it looks like specifically they have banned the Sun newspaper because of Page 3.

Now, I think the Sun is a horrible horrible rag, but to ban it on campus is thought policing.

This is the hardest part of free speech, defending the indefensible, like the Sun. If you make me defend Jeremy Clarkson I may have to throw the towel in.

[MintTrav]

I wonder if Britain's Chief of Defence, General Houghton, will lose his job. He is now the subject of a complaint, having given his political opinion on an important military question, and his view that he would be worried if the current Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister. As a senior public servant, he shouldn't be expressing political views one way or the other, so he doesn't really have a defence.

He has been criticised in the Chilcott Report and his objections are, apparently, one of the main reasons for the delay in its publication. He should really be dealt with now but, with the Report due in the Summer, I expect he will be kept on til it comes out and kicked out allowed to retire then.

[DungBeetle]

I wonder if Britain's Chief of Defence, General Houghton, will lose his job. He is now the subject of a complaint, having given his political opinion on an important military question, and his view that he would be worried if the current Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister. As a senior public servant, he shouldn't be expressing political views one way or the other, so he doesn't really have a defence.

He has been criticised in the Chilcott Report and his objections are, apparently, one of the main reasons for the delay in its publication. He should really be dealt with now but, with the Report due in the Summer, I expect he will be kept on til it comes out and kicked out allowed to retire then.

I agree with you in principle, but how is it different from senior NHS staff saying that the Tories are dismantling the health service or police chiefs wailing about cuts?  Corbyn wants to destroy the army (allegedly).  Tories wants to destroy the health service and savage the police budget (allegedly).  All the people being critical are on the public payroll and serve the State.   What's the difference?

[DaveShoelace]

The (small) part of the interview I saw, he didn't even really specifically attack Corbyn, just the idea of not going ahead with the nuclear option as a detterent.

[Doobs]

I think there is probably a question on why the General was on a political program in the first place.  I'd say the comment on the deterrent is probably fair because it related to his job.  He shouldn't have answered any questions on Jeremy Corbyn and probably should have ducked the invite.  Plenty of ex generals could have said the same. 

Corbyn of course loses massively in my eyes by stating "with the greatest of respect"...

[DaveShoelace]

I think there is probably a question on why the General was on a political program in the first place.  I'd say the comment on the deterrent is probably fair because it related to his job.  He shouldn't have answered any questions on Jeremy Corbyn and probably should have ducked the invite.  Plenty of ex generals could have said the same. 

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks he was put on that show in some way to distract or get him out of the way, for something future related to the Chilcott thing.

[DaveShoelace]

[AlunB]

I wonder if Britain's Chief of Defence, General Houghton, will lose his job. He is now the subject of a complaint, having given his political opinion on an important military question, and his view that he would be worried if the current Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister. As a senior public servant, he shouldn't be expressing political views one way or the other, so he doesn't really have a defence.

He has been criticised in the Chilcott Report and his objections are, apparently, one of the main reasons for the delay in its publication. He should really be dealt with now but, with the Report due in the Summer, I expect he will be kept on til it comes out and kicked out allowed to retire then.

I agree with you in principle, but how is it different from senior NHS staff saying that the Tories are dismantling the health service or police chiefs wailing about cuts?  Corbyn wants to destroy the army (allegedly).  Tories wants to destroy the health service and savage the police budget (allegedly).  All the people being critical are on the public payroll and serve the State.   What's the difference?

Because to my understanding those other examples don't directly influence policy or government decisions. If you are a state-employed adviser to the government then you should at least attempt to appear politically impartial.

edit: As opposed to one appointed by said government that is. People who are advisers regardless of the political shade of the government of the day

[Doobs]

Very good

He is getting his respecting right now, but...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11982885/Jeremy-Corbyn-was-no-Michael-Foot-at-the-Cenotaph-but-remember-it-could-all-be-an-act.html

Could have been taken straight out of the dailymash.

[horseplayer]

[DaveShoelace]

Q of the day

Do you think your life is better because you take an interest in politics?

I find it fascinating and empowering to learn more about politics. In particular I love learning about something that helps you see through media rhetoric and political spin, and see how life really is compared to how it is presented to us.

But wow, it is depressing sometimes. It can make you feel totally helpless at times, particularly when it is something so systemtic it may never change.

I can't decide whether I'd be better off just looking a funny dog memes on the internet instead.

[DungBeetle]

Q of the day

Do you think your life is better because you take an interest in politics?

I find it fascinating and empowering to learn more about politics. In particular I love learning about something that helps you see through media rhetoric and political spin, and see how life really is compared to how it is presented to us.

But wow, it is depressing sometimes. It can make you feel totally helpless at times, particularly when it is something so systemtic it may never change.

I can't decide whether I'd be better off just looking a funny dog memes on the internet instead.

Following politics stresses me out so I think it's a negative for me.  I read the Mail in the morning and I rage.  Afternoons I read the Guardian and I rage again.  I am in a constant state of fury.  Sometimes I think I'd be better off just burying my head in the sand.  Thinking about it maybe it is the press that enrages me rather than politics as such.

[AlunB]

Q of the day

Do you think your life is better because you take an interest in politics?

I find it fascinating and empowering to learn more about politics. In particular I love learning about something that helps you see through media rhetoric and political spin, and see how life really is compared to how it is presented to us.

But wow, it is depressing sometimes. It can make you feel totally helpless at times, particularly when it is something so systemtic it may never change.

I can't decide whether I'd be better off just looking a funny dog memes on the internet instead.

Following politics stresses me out so I think it's a negative for me.  I read the Mail in the morning and I rage.  Afternoons I read the Guardian and I rage again.  I am in a constant state of fury.  Sometimes I think I'd be better off just burying my head in the sand.  Thinking about it maybe it is the press that enrages me rather than politics as such.

The Mail is designed to make you rage. Reading it and complaining about raging is a bit like going swimming and complaining about getting wet.

[The Camel]

People are still wearing poppies.

Isn't Remembrance Sunday the cutoff usually?