Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.
I mean, consider all the ‘moral panics’ the gutter press continually push - but we’re meant to simply listen and not debate or silence such hatred?
My understanding is that they can debate them, they don't have to just sit and listen to them spout bollocks.
There's an issue in many fringe groups, however, where disagreement with them and debate against them is seen as attempts to silence them.
If they can't hold their own in a debate, then maybe they should have a think about whether they actually believe, and can defend the gak they come out with. If they can't, that's their problem, not mine.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
Yep, Fake News is the antidote to all those things you don't like to hear.
That and Alt-Facts.
It's fething bollocks. Anyone who says those things should be shot in the face, no trial, no debate, straight execution.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
Yep, Fake News is the antidote to all those things you don't like to hear.
That and Alt-Facts.
It's fething bollocks. Anyone who says those things should be shot in the face, no trial, no debate, straight execution.
I think a more humane approach is needed, whereby they are strapped down and forced to watch as it is explained in minute detail, starting from the absolute basics of whatever discipline their false belief lies in, why they are wrong and there are no alternative interpretations.
Artists Impression:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/26 23:02:29
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
Absolutely.
It's a sensible position to hold if you can use reason to come to your conclusions and are capable of changing your mind when provided with evidence that shows your original position to be false. However, we live in a world that voted Trump into office, where the ideology of ISIS has some Caucasian Europeans rushing off to Syria, and a pathetic amount of humanity thinks there's a "controversy" with regards to global warming. Reason and evidence might as well take a running swan dive.
A lot of the people that are being denied a platform at these universities are demagogues. They hold fanatical positions devoid of reason and evidence.
That this is being argued as a case of "free speech" is utter rot. Nobody is preventing you from sharting that filth from your mouth, but nobody need be responsible for giving you a platform to spray everybody with.
They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.
I mean, consider all the ‘moral panics’ the gutter press continually push - but we’re meant to simply listen and not debate or silence such hatred?
When somebody starts taking about "free speech" (on campuses or anywhere else) it often just means their speech (and speech similar to theirs) and not yours, stuff like this. And it often works because the people who can effect change (or have the power to do something) are usually the ones who are not affected by this type of "free speech" absolutism (which stops being absolute the moment anybody says something they don't like). That the status quo might have negative effects on the free speech of minorities doesn't even register as long as their own "free speech" is secured. And dissident from anyone is seen as infringing on their free speech (instead of it being free speech from others that's criticising their bs) just because those people are used to not hearing or being affected by opposition until that moment. Ask them if that also applies to ISIS propaganda or comprehensive high school sex education (including LGBT issues) and you'll probably find their limits to free speech very quickly.
Also I want to address the "the students" bit. That doesn't apply too much here in Germany but in the US, and to a degree in the UK, students pay huge semester fees so they are also the customers in this relationship. That's also a reason why those campus protests are so controversial over there. They want students to be customers and pay but they don't want to have to deal with customer support when students are pissed of at something (like inviting some useless "contrarian" to give a talk).
Kilkrazy wrote:I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
It's not like counted for much in the 30s and things haven't changed much. We are in period of economic stagnation for the poor and middle-class with the 2008 recession to fuel that type of misguided populism. If you don't give a feth then you'll be able to manipulate your way into power. Read Eco's Ur-Fascism (there's a list a bit past the halfway mark), the same emotionally manipulative tactics are being used, nothing has changed. The difference is now you can target your audience a bit better and are (to a degree) protected if you work careful enough and wrap yourself in enough talk of patriotism (instead of nationalism) and use new words to describe the same, or similar, policies. You (or people like you) even get nice write ups in the New York Time. One would hope the NYT could learn from its own past but apparently that's too much to ask for (link with quotes if the NYT link ones doesn't work).
In short: The truth doesn't matter if your opponents just ignores it and goes for the emotional appeal while, of course, applying the "rational" label to their side. You are fighting a defensive battle (debunking their "misinformation") and spending more time on that they they do on crafting those statements and you'll just lose in the end. They also call your counter-argument with citations "fake news" so their followers don't even trust your facts and everybody else (the people you want to dissuade from siding with that rhetoric) is just sitting confused in the middle of it all.
They’re the target audience. The decision should lie solely with them.
Errrr....no? For the most part, guest speakers at University are communicated with, invited, ferried from the station, introduced, given drinks afterwards, and waved off by the academic staff. Most students never bother to turn up. Heck, most postgrads don't. It's only when it's somebody the NUS dislikes or somesuch that a speaker is suddenly prominent enough to be barred.
To put it bluntly, why should the desire of a bunch of students to not listen to somebody dictate what speakers I'm allowed to invite for a talk/lecture? That's them getting to decide not who they would like to listen or give a platform to, but me as well. How would you like it if when you wanted to watch a documentary on the telly, your neighbours took a vote on whether or not they should come over and turn it off?
In the same manner of 'your right to swing your fist ends at my face', their right to decide who they want to listen to ends when it begins to restrict who I can listen to/interact with. If they don't like the person (for whatever reason), they are free to either not attend, or if they absolutely have to protest, stand outside peacefully with a placard. A small batch of students not liking somebody or not feeling comfortable with them doesn't give them the right to decide who the department invites in to listen to a talk from.
The basics of this article are that the German Foreign Minister thinks a special trade deal for the UK could be a way to get countries like Turkey and Ukraine closer to the EU without letting them in (due to human rights abuses, etc.)
This seems a positive sign.
I did say several months back that the logical foreign policy approach to Brexit was something of a combined arms one; where we should pull together all the people in a similar position to us and set up some kind of general negotiating position for access to the common market without the political unification. Thus making it less about 'Brexit Britain' and more about, Hey, there's a group of us who want something, let's sit down and work it out'.
Unfortunately, Bumbler Boris has yet to stop salivating over the PM's seat long enough to do his job.
It definitely seems best to allow contraversial guests to attend and be protested / ignored, since it prevents any claims of foul play.
I think students do have a right to be pissed off if their money is being spent bringing and entertaining nasty individuals - they'll spend most of their university career being told there isn't enough money.
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
That has never worked in reality. Allowing people a platform gives legitimacy to their views. The BBC has had issues with this around Brexit and global warming recently. In their attempts to be impartial they have ended up giving extreme and minority beliefs that are demonstrably false legitimacy. Those with extreme views use rules like this to give themselves legitimacy. Complain that any attempt to argue with them is censorship. This is exactly what has happened with creationism in some US schools.
Sometimes it is legitimate to say someone’s views are not welcome. That’s why the UK government does refuse visas to some people. This is just the right wing press getting their pants in a twist because views they hold are becoming less and less acceptable.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
That has never worked in reality. Allowing people a platform gives legitimacy to their views. The BBC has had issues with this around Brexit and global warming recently. In their attempts to be impartial they have ended up giving extreme and minority beliefs that are demonstrably false legitimacy. Those with extreme views use rules like this to give themselves legitimacy. Complain that any attempt to argue with them is censorship. This is exactly what has happened with creationism in some US schools.
Sometimes it is legitimate to say someone’s views are not welcome. That’s why the UK government does refuse visas to some people. This is just the right wing press getting their pants in a twist because views they hold are becoming less and less acceptable.
This is very much a problem. Leaving behind Wrexit for a moment as in some ways it is more based on ideology, the BBCs approach on Climate Change has and continues to provide a misleading visual impression. By having a one vs one debate argument it gives the impression that the argument is equally weighted on both sides. In reality it should be about 1000 on one side and one on the other when considering the scientific evidence. Hence although the BBC are trying to give both sides a view it artificially raises the profile of the climate change deniers. This is compounded by the journalists not having the scientific knowledge to ask really probing questions of both parties. As such you get very science light questions which also gives the opportunity for 'deniers' to spout nonsense without the opportunity to show what they are saying is incorrect at the scientific level.
Unfortunately, Bumbler Boris has yet to stop salivating over the PM's seat long enough to do his job.
I think we may be waiting a long time....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: The thing with proving trump wrong is that he's moved onto the next lie by time you're done fact checking. Facts are always slower than liars.
Agreed. There was an article I read (think it was new scientist) about a "person on the other side of the Atlantic that shall not be named" and the strategy they take. It is literally this, keep on spouting nonsense but change it so quickly that the people arguing against it literally do not have chance to fact check everything; hence that encourages quick responses where if they can be shown to be wrong you jump on them for false news etc. If they don't bite then by the time they come back with the evidence they've moved onto something completely different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: A lot of the people that are being denied a platform at these universities are demagogues. They hold fanatical positions devoid of reason and evidence.
That this is being argued as a case of "free speech" is utter rot. Nobody is preventing you from sharting that filth from your mouth, but nobody need be responsible for giving you a platform to spray everybody with.
It's ironic of course that the Tories espouse this "free speech" approach but at any of their own events (and to be fair applies to Labour too) such as during the election they specifically manage their own crowds to avoid any awkward questions and to have such debates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I was discussing this with a colleague at work last week. We came to the conclusion that the way that you prove people wrong is to prove them wrong.
However, I am not sure that that counts for anything in the modern world.
The problem is that some studies have shown that as a populace we can become even more hardlined when showed evidence or arguments that proves us wrong. That as a species we will actively resist being shown to being wrong and that can further entrench their views making people more fanatical in that regard.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/27 10:39:17
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I think students do have a right to be pissed off if their money is being spent bringing and entertaining nasty individuals - they'll spend most of their university career being told there isn't enough money.
Students also get pissed off if you don't give them easy marks, dare to have a statue up of a historic figure, and threaten to suspend them for cheating. Or should I say, some students do. Part of running an institution is learning what are genuine widely held student concerns which should be catered for (open access to poorer/disadvantaged students, more sanitary halls, etc), and what's just pandering to a few large children screaming that people aren't doing what they say.
Not to mention that Universities usually have other cash flows (rents, grants, etc). Just because you pay your undergrad fee in no way means you should get to control who academic staff invite in for a talk, anymore than taking out a loan at Barclays lets you fire an employee at your local branch. Sure you're making use of a service they provide which gives them capital, but that doesn't mean you own/run the place.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/27 12:18:54
Thousands of government papers detailing some of the most controversial episodes in 20th-century British history have vanished after civil servants removed them from the country’s National Archives and then reported them as lost.
Documents concerning the Falklands war, Northern Ireland’s Troubles and the infamous Zinoviev letter – in which MI6 officers plotted to bring about the downfall of the first Labour government - are all said to have been misplaced.
Other missing files concern the British colonial administration in Palestine, tests on polio vaccines and long-running territorial disputes between the UK and Argentina.
Almost 1,000 files, each thought to contain dozens of papers, are affected. In most instances the entire file is said to have been mislaid after being removed from public view at the archives and taken back to Whitehall.
An entire file on the Zinoviev letter scandal is said to have been lost after Home Office civil servants took it away. The Home Office declined to say why it was taken or when or how it was lost. Nor would its say whether any copies had been made.
In other instances, papers from within files have been carefully selected and taken away.
Foreign Office officials removed a small number of papers in 2015 from a file concerning the 1978 murder of Georgi Markov, a dissident Bulgarian journalist who died after being shot in the leg with a tiny pellet containing ricin while crossing Waterloo Bridge in central London.
The Foreign Office subsequently told the National Archives that the papers taken were nowhere to be found.
After being questioned by the Guardian, it said it had managed to locate most of the papers and return them to the archives. A couple, however, are still missing. The FO declined to say why it had taken the papers, or whether it had copies.
Other files the National Archives has listed as “misplaced while on loan to government department” include one concerning the activities of the Communist party of Great Britain at the height of the cold war; another detailing the way in which the British government took possession of Russian government funds held in British banks after the 1917 revolution; an assessment for government ministers on the security situation in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s; and three files about defence agreements between the UK and newly independent Malaya in the late 1950s, shortly before the two countries went to war with Indonesia.
The disappearances highlight the ease with which government departments can commandeer official papers long after they have been declassified and made available to historians and the public at the archives at Kew, south-west London.
A Freedom of Information Act request in 2014 showed that 9,308 files were returned to government departments in this way in 2011. The following year 7,122 files were loaned out, and 7,468 in 2013. The National Archives says Whitehall departments are strongly encouraged to promptly return them, but they are not under any obligation to do so.
“The National Archives regularly sends lists to government departments of files that they have out on loan,” a spokesperson said. “If we are notified that a file is missing, we do ask what actions have been done and what action is being taken to find the file.”
Some historians have been particularly distrustful of the Foreign Office since 2013, when the Guardian disclosed that the department had been unlawfully hoarding 1.2m historical files at a high-security compound near Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire.
The hoard came to light during high court proceedings brought by a group of elderly Kenyans who were detained and abused during the Mau Mau insurgency in 1950s Kenya, when the Foreign Office admitted it had withheld thousands of colonial-era files.
A few years earlier, the Ministry of Defence refused to consider a number of files for release under the Freedom of Information Act on the grounds that they may have been exposed to asbestos
The files concerned such matters as arms sales to Saudi Arabia, UK special forces operations against Indonesia and interrogation techniques. The MoD denied it was using the presence of asbestos in an old archive building as an excuse to suppress the documents.
The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the "elimination" of the colonial authority's enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of aman said to have been "roasted alive"; and papers detailing the lengths to which the UK went to forcibly remove islanders from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
However, among the documents are a handful which show that many of the most sensitive papers from Britain's late colonial era were not hidden away, but simply destroyed. These papers give the instructions for systematic destruction issued in 1961 after Iain Macleod, secretary of state for the colonies, directed that post-independence governments should not get any material that "might embarrass Her Majesty's government", that could "embarrass members of the police, military forces, public servants or others eg police informers", that might compromise intelligence sources, or that might "be used unethically by ministers in the successor government".
Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948; most of the sensitive documents kept by colonial authorities in Aden, where the army's Intelligence Corps operated a secret torture centre for several years in the 1960s; and every sensitive document kept by the authorities in British Guiana, a colony whose policies were heavily influenced by successive US governments and whose post-independence leader was toppled in a coup orchestrated by the CIA.
Facts are always slower than liars.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Eh. Half and half on that one. Some files probably have been 'lost', but at the same time, different people in different government departments borrow different files all the time, and it would be a bit impractical to service an FOI request asking why each one of several thousand different files out at one time were borrowed. Even when it came to the 'hidden' FO files, there are similar repositories all over the place you can't generally access (the Admiralty library at Portsmouth has large numbers of original documents locked away, for example).
That being said, as someone who's needed a file from the National Archives only to discover it's been loaned out with no return date, I'd rather they just paid for civil servants to go to Kew or made a copy for them. I consider it somewhat irresponsible to just send out documents the way they do.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/27 12:49:05
I think students do have a right to be pissed off if their money is being spent bringing and entertaining nasty individuals - they'll spend most of their university career being told there isn't enough money.
Students also get pissed off if you don't give them easy marks, dare to have a statue up of a historic figure, and threaten to suspend them for cheating. Or should I say, some students do. Part of running an institution is learning what are genuine widely held student concerns which should be catered for (open access to poorer/disadvantaged students, more sanitary halls, etc), and what's just pandering to a few large children screaming that people aren't doing what they say.
Not to mention that Universities usually have other cash flows (rents, grants, etc). Just because you pay your undergrad fee in no way means you should get to control who academic staff invite in for a talk, anymore than taking out a loan at Barclays lets you fire an employee at your local branch. Sure you're making use of a service they provide which gives them capital, but that doesn't mean you own/run the place.
Britain First - Liars, racists and bigots. They need the oxygen of publicity. They do ISIS' work for them.
Katie Hopkins - Liar, racist and bigot. She needs the oxygen of publicity. She does ISIS' work for them.
These are the sorts that have earned No Platform. And all through their own vile efforts to drive divisions in the UK. They're so far removed from the truth, one simply cannot debate them - they'll just spout more lies to cover their tracks and discredit their (many, many) critics.
It's not the Uni Students we have to worry about. It's the Far Right being normalised, rationalised and acknowledged. Just gives credence to their hatred. Far Left too for that matter. And who falls for that tripe? The under educated. Those who for the past couple of decades have been roundly told 'it's not your fault you've 23 kids, no teeth and no job. It's all those immygrunts' and fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Yeah, but it isn't the local BNP ambassador getting students all worked up, is it? It's Hen Mazzig, or Germaine Greer or Maryam Namazie. The minute you put into place levers which allow people you don't like to be blacklisted, you put into place levers to prevent those who you wouldn't mind talking.
Morality, political opinion, and various other things are highly subjective. If someone is in favour of trying to control who academic staff or student societies, or indeed, anyone can invite in to talk to them, they've become nothing more than an opponent of free speech. Much like the old school communists, they're just trying to control what other people can see, hear, and experience for fear that they might dare to have the 'wrong' idea. It's a patronising and thoroughly incompatible attitude with the entire ethos of higher education or free speech.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/27 14:23:18
I do seem to remember students kicking up a fuss over someone a few years back, so it got to the point where they refused to host them.
I think it was Warick?
But if you are that opposed I don't think you should refuse them because that just gains sympathy. Instead, actually debate their arguments in person and you'll get a somewhat better response.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/27 15:22:00
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
The other thing is saying the ‘students chose’ but the choice is really made by handful of people in the local NUS who were voted there by almost no one. If students don’t like a speaker they are free to leave, that’s freedom. I sure as hell wouldn’t sit around to hear the likes of Katie Hopkins but I wouldn’t demand she be no-platformed.
I only touched briefly on student politics though running a uni society, we were all required to attend various meetings where they held votes to pass motions. The process wa agonising, a load of self important no bodies trying to get some attention passing irrelevant motions like ‘an agreement to support the reduction of litter on campus’. Most students have little interest in student politics, hardly anyone actually votes in their elections, they’re voted in on hundreds not thousands of votes, and the amount of BS and grandstanding once they have this glimpse of power is pathetic. Which is exactly where these efforts to bar people like Germaine Greer come from. Most students couldn’t name their local president, and the first they’d interact with them is when they decide to bar a person they were hoping to hear speak at the Uni. Democracy my ass.
It shows how far we've come. My Twitter has had some discussion on this recently and there have people people sneering at Germaine Greer or sarcastically refer to her as ‘feminist’ in inverted commas because apparently she doesn’t count as one in the eyes of some any more, because of her views on transsexuals. Barking mad. Literally everyone who isn’t 100% with them, is against them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/27 15:22:14
Howard A Treesong wrote: The other thing is saying the ‘students chose’ but the choice is really made by handful of people in the local NUS who were voted there by almost no one. If students don’t like a speaker they are free to leave, that’s freedom. I sure as hell wouldn’t sit around to hear the likes of Katie Hopkins but I wouldn’t demand she be no-platformed.
I only touched briefly on student politics though running a uni society, we were all required to attend various meetings where they held votes to pass motions. The process wa agonising, a load of self important no bodies trying to get some attention passing irrelevant motions like ‘an agreement to support the reduction of litter on campus’. Most students have little interest in student politics, hardly anyone actually votes in their elections, they’re voted in on hundreds not thousands of votes, and the amount of BS and grandstanding once they have this glimpse of power is pathetic. Which is exactly where these efforts to bar people like Germaine Greer come from. Most students couldn’t name their local president, and the first they’d interact with them is when they decide to bar a person they were hoping to hear speak at the Uni. Democracy my ass.
It shows how far we've come. My Twitter has had some discussion on this recently and there have people people sneering at Germaine Greer or sarcastically refer to her as ‘feminist’ in inverted commas because apparently she doesn’t count as one in the eyes of some any more, because of her views on transsexuals. Barking mad. Literally everyone who isn’t 100% with them, is against them.
That does remind me of a hilarious story from the last year of University.
The President of the Student Union wanted to ban BAE Systems from campus.
It did not go down well at all.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
welshhoppo wrote: I do seem to remember students kicking up a fuss over someone a few years back, so it got to the point where they refused to host them.
I think it was Warick?
But if you are that opposed I don't think you should refuse them because that just gains sympathy. Instead, actually debate their arguments in person and you'll get a somewhat better response.
That was Maryam Namazie I think. She's (broadly) a seculist but views religions differently in that some are more 'enlightened' (in her view e.g. Christianity) versus Inquisitorial (in her view e.g. Islam) and pretty much disparages any chance that Islam can develop from where it currently is IIRC. Hence there is some opposition as there is a view that it is effectively bigotry/racism because a person is viewing people of different religions differently.
Some UCL students hurled abuse at Hen Mazzig when he came to do a speech, though generally unfairly as his history is to try and help both sides of the conflict. However he is associated with the military during a time when they have taken excessive actions against Palestine (justified or not is for another debate) but really that is the Israeli governments approach rather than an individual soldier (and I think everyone has to do military service?)
Germaine Greer gave a talk at Cardiff University but was subject to abuse/petition because of her views on transgenders, which summarily, her views are you are born either a woman and man and no amount of surgery can change that (obviously there is a lot more subtleties to all of these!).
That does remind me of a hilarious story from the last year of University.
The President of the Student Union wanted to ban BAE Systems from campus.
It did not go down well at all.
It's not that laughable, I know people that won't consider jobs or work with BAE (regardless of the money) because of their association with weapons and their use. It's in some ways a political stand, though I'm not sure a blanket ban is the way to go.
I think I would prefer that the student union can give a 10 minute talk at the beginning of any talk as to why they don't support the seminar. That provides the opportunity to put forward both arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/27 15:57:47
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
It's not that laughable, I know people that won't consider jobs or work with BAE (regardless of the money) because of their association with weapons and their use. It's in some ways a political stand, though I'm not sure a blanket ban is the way to go.
I think I would prefer that the student union can give a 10 minute talk at the beginning of any talk as to why they don't support the seminar. That provides the opportunity to put forward both arguments.
If Welshoppo went to Kent, then the SU tried to ban BAE from being at the careers fayre. Considering how big of an employer they are to graduates of the physical sciences, it was a completely ridiculous position. It is up to each of the individual graduates to determine who they want to work for and in what capacity. It was also a stance that completely ignores that there are many roles within BAE that are not designing weapons, such as their work in the space sector.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/27 16:27:49
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Many people have companies they wouldn’t work with. When I was unemployed and looking for lab work or technician jobs, I gave anything with animal testing a skip despite being desperate for work. I couldn’t do that, but it’s my choice, preventing organisations from recruiting opportunities is a bit patronising, it’s like people can’t be trusted to make up their own minds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/27 16:26:28
Howard A Treesong wrote: Many people have companies they wouldn’t work with. When I was unemployed and looking for lab work or technician jobs, I gave anything with animal testing a skip despite being desperate for work. I couldn’t do that, but it’s my choice, preventing organisations from recruiting opportunities is a bit patronising, it’s like people can’t be trusted to make up their own minds.
Exactly. To make things worse, the people pushing for the ban were often people who wouldn't be qualified to work for such a company anyway. They effectively impose their moral standard without needing to worry about their stance adversely affecting them in any way because they are boycotting an employer which they would never be employed by in the first place. The mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, engineers, chemists etc. lose out so those not studying the physical sciences or maths or computing can feel warm and fuzzy about making a stand which does nothing but harm the career prospects of some of their fellow students.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/27 16:35:57
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
It's not that laughable, I know people that won't consider jobs or work with BAE (regardless of the money) because of their association with weapons and their use. It's in some ways a political stand, though I'm not sure a blanket ban is the way to go.
I think I would prefer that the student union can give a 10 minute talk at the beginning of any talk as to why they don't support the seminar. That provides the opportunity to put forward both arguments.
If Welshoppo went to Kent, then the SU tried to ban BAE from being at the careers fayre. Considering how big of an employer they are to graduates of the physical sciences, it was a completely ridiculous position. It is up to each of the individual graduates to determine who they want to work for and in what capacity. It was also a stance that completely ignores that there are many roles within BAE that are not designing weapons, such as their work in the space sector.
That's not really the point though. You can still go and work for BAE if you want to, send a CV etc. How many times have we here commented on the UKs position of selling arms to Saudi Arabia? It's not impossible for a political statement to be made by refusing them to advertise, especially if they then undertake a position to positively request other (non weapon based) manufacturers to come on site. If the students then oppose that then they should really vote for someone more rational next time. The point of a political body is that it makes a choice on behalf of the voting population.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
But that's hard to do. You can get actual careers from jobs fayres. Also, this would have banned them from being on campus so do you think BAE would actively try and recruit from a campus that doesn't want them there?
If you oppose BAE, then it's your choice. But I'm sure a lot of Engineering students would love to work for them.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Kilkrazy wrote:The situation now is that most of the world has turned the corner on the financial crisis, and the UK hasn't.
We turned the corner on that about 3-4 years ago, while the Eurozone was busy making a right mess of Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal.
BaronIveagh wrote:You're negotiating when everyone knows your desperate for any kind of deal. I wouldn't expect anything good out of this.
The UK benefits from not having to protect as wide a variety of industries. The MFN system also effectively allows countries to freeboot off the back of everyone elses trade deals.
jouso wrote:All those scenarios were contingent on art50 being invoked immediately, which didn't happen despite that being what Cameron said he would do. Everyone keep in mind that Brexit hasn't even happened yet.
It's been invoked now. I don't see 500,000 people out of work.
tneva82 wrote:You still have banking passport. Both of those are going to be GONE. Especially banking. Banks have already started moving staff out of uk and once passports gone more follows. You have no chance to keep that passport. Too many workplaces and money for eu to not take them and many countries are already aiming to get them and effect to uk is irrelevant for eu. Eu wants those and uk has nothing to offer that's worth more than those.
Back in 2015 The European Securities and Markets Authority looked at the possibility of allowing non-EU fund managers access to the same passporting rights as EU members, providing of course they set up a subsidiary somewhere in the EU. Their conclusion was that there was no good reason not to do this and that it would help European markets overall. Chances are the passporting rights are coming to all non-EU fund managers (not just British ones) in the near future anyway. Brexit actually offers the EU a great chance to palm this off to the British government as a concession in negotiations when it's something they were looking at doing anyway. This is why British based banks are setting up subsidiaries in places like Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt.
You need to understand firstly that banks are fantastically good at evading regulation. Politicians have spent the best part of 800 years trying to limit the excesses of banks and control their markets. So far they've achieved this successfully precisely 0 times. Secondly you need to understand the integrated nature of financial markets. A banker from Deutsche bank summed it up nicely by explaining that he thought Brexit would allow EU firms to take London's crumbs and make them into a pie. In other words, nobody on the continent (aside from some of the politicians) have any illusions that London is going to melt away and spread its wealth across the EU. You're talking about a city that employs almost 750,000 people in financial services alone, and that doesn't account for the other supporting elements distributed across the rest of the UK. EU bankers are savvy enough to understand that what they're looking at is the ability to skim off some of London's takings, but they neither expect nor indeed want to see a powerhouse like London suddenly collapse.
Whirlwind wrote:Nevertheless as you've now admitted the IMF were in fact correct with their predictions from 18 months ago.
Erm, no. They backed the adverse scenario and threw their weight behind it. They got it wrong.
On Freedom of speech - Trying to suppress freedom of speech seldom works the way people think it will. It is as dangerous to try and shut out certain voices as it is to air them out. By shutting someone like a Katie Hopkins out you're letting her play the victim and giving her the ammuntion to sit there and scream blue murder that she's being suppressed and the elites don't want to hear what she has to say etc. By putting her on a platform you force her to openly state her opinions and expose her arguments to critique. Now she can't hide behind anyone or claim she's a victim of political suppression by her opponents. Yes, it does mean you have to listen to her spout her , but on the plus side it exposes her for who she really is.
If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB
I don’t see 500,000 out of work, I see a lot more people caught in part time or zero hours contracts that get them off the unemployed stats but no where near being able to support themselves or have financial stability.
Why employ one person full time when you can fill the same hours with two or three that are at your beck and call, to work unsociable hours or fill in shifts at short notice, or simply be asked to not come in if it is a quiet week? Great for employers, great for the government, great for cutting back on benefits, terrible for those employed and their dependents.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don’t see 500,000 out of work, I see a lot more people caught in part time or zero hours contracts that get them off the unemployed stats but no where near being able to support themselves or have financial stability.
Why employ one person full time when you can fill the same hours with two or three that are at your beck and call, to work unsociable hours or fill in shifts at short notice, or simply be asked to not come in if it is a quiet week? Great for employers, great for the government, great for cutting back on benefits, terrible for those employed and their dependents.
Which is ideally why we need to reform employers national insurance contributions, starting by making it payable against companies total wage bill and not individual wages. And eventually dispense with it for the madness it is. As for zero hours, I don't think many people really understand what it entails. I technically used to be on a zero hours contract as a bouncer, but in practice I had regular work. Most of the people that complain in the press/politicians etc about zero hours work have never done any.
If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB
welshhoppo wrote: But that's hard to do. You can get actual careers from jobs fayres. Also, this would have banned them from being on campus so do you think BAE would actively try and recruit from a campus that doesn't want them there?
If you oppose BAE, then it's your choice. But I'm sure a lot of Engineering students would love to work for them.
But it's an individual choice, whereas the student body is elected by those students to make certain decisions. If they aren't happy with it then they should vote for another body. Yes it might impact on the engineering students, but then they should vote for someone that wouldn't implement it.
A comparison would be Trump's visit to the UK. There are many here that oppose Trump coming to the UK because in a manner it can be seen as a vindication of views that are deemed unpalatable. Folks cannot be both opposed to a Trump state visit and wanting the political establishment to oppose such a move (which in this case Labour would halt); but then be opposed to a student body stopping someone else's visit on another political issue (for example BAE and weapons). Otherwise we are in effect having 'our cake and eating it'. That's not to say there aren't other ways - the student body could for example insist that they put a large display (in a polite way) next to BAE's stand showing the damage their weapons do to the world. That then opens up the debate. In the same way we could insist that Trump has a live debate on climate change with a UK scientist to open up the debate.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Well I’ve known people in zero hours contracts that were frequently called up the day before or even in the morning to work the afternoon because someone was ill or whatever. Great if you’re sitting around with nothing to do, bit more pay. But if they said they couldn’t do it, surprise surprise they had fewer hours given on the next week’s rota. You want regular hours? You be prepared to bend over for them all the time.
, but on the plus side it exposes her for who she really is.