|
Post by number13 on Feb 7, 2021 17:46:59 GMT
So I really didn't imagine it! Thanks sherlock
As always when a 'new' returning character comes to BF, it will be interesting to see how they are newly interpreted by the writers, as well as the new actor.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 9, 2021 8:48:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 14, 2021 14:17:24 GMT
Government to appoint 'free-speech champion' for universities Of all the ways for the government to react to the BLM movement this is the most thick headed response. The culture secretary said he wanted to “defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down”. I would love to know what he means by "our culture" & "trying to do Britain down". Are we to have a sugar coated view of British history that only looks at the positives? I am reminded of George Orwell's 1984, "Who controls the past controls the future". & also David Olusoga's recent comments.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 16, 2021 14:07:36 GMT
The latest in the Government’s McCarythist overreaction to supposed threats to free speech has been published: www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-free-speech-and-academic-freedomThese ideas have about as much value as Williamson’s dead spider. They will probably accomplish nothing but imposing more bureaucracy on universities and student unions and making events inviting external speakers less likely.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 16, 2021 15:13:25 GMT
The latest in the Government’s McCarythist overreaction to supposed threats to free speech has been published: www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-free-speech-and-academic-freedomThese ideas have about as much value as Williamson’s dead spider. They will probably accomplish nothing but imposing more bureaucracy on universities and student unions and making events inviting external speakers less likely. Getting on for 40 years ago now I remember the car of a visiting (mainstream) Conservative speaker being pelted with eggs and flour by students who were no doubt fully supportive of free speech. By the right people, on the right subjects, as judged by the righteous. The difference now is that instead of trying to intimidate people by throwing flour and eggs on one evening at one location, they can throw Twitter tantrums and try to intimidate people for longer and more widely.
Insisting on free speech for almost everyone (almost = within very wide legal limits, such as we have right now) isn't remotely McCarthyist but I agree it is unenforcable in practical terms. Many students back then (the ones who had political ideas anyway) in the heyday of the Bennites were so far left you had to twist your head round to see them. No other viewpoint was vaild or could even be considered. The country is still here and their revolution doesn't seem to have got very far, so I'm sure we'll be OK as a nation and survive the current tendencies for 'absolute truth' too, with continuous change, but not revolution.
But individuals may suffer from being targeted unfairly and that's just wrong, though I can't see any solution except more tolerance all round. And that's never been the way of most activists for any cause. 'What do we want? Tolerance! When do we want it? Right after they admit they're wrong!'
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 16, 2021 15:49:35 GMT
The latest in the Government’s McCarythist overreaction to supposed threats to free speech has been published: www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-free-speech-and-academic-freedomThese ideas have about as much value as Williamson’s dead spider. They will probably accomplish nothing but imposing more bureaucracy on universities and student unions and making events inviting external speakers less likely. This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. There are NO threats to free speech, it is just a lot of people don't understand what free speech is, & they also want to be able to say whatever they want without any consequence. Its appealing to a certain type of person who moans that you can't say X anymore straight after they have said X. But the good news is this means the government will be u-turning on these decisions
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 17, 2021 9:21:52 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2021 10:07:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2021 10:10:19 GMT
The latest in the Government’s McCarythist overreaction to supposed threats to free speech has been published: www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-free-speech-and-academic-freedomThese ideas have about as much value as Williamson’s dead spider. They will probably accomplish nothing but imposing more bureaucracy on universities and student unions and making events inviting external speakers less likely. This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. There are NO threats to free speech, it is just a lot of people don't understand what free speech is, & they also want to be able to say whatever they want without any consequence. Its appealing to a certain type of person who moans that you can't say X anymore straight after they have said X. But the good news is this means the government will be u-turning on these decisions A rather different 'lived perspective' on the matter from a Professor of British Politics
|
|
|
Post by The Brigadier on Feb 17, 2021 10:58:21 GMT
This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. There are NO threats to free speech, it is just a lot of people don't understand what free speech is, & they also want to be able to say whatever they want without any consequence. Its appealing to a certain type of person who moans that you can't say X anymore straight after they have said X. But the good news is this means the government will be u-turning on these decisions A rather different 'lived perspective' on the matter from a Professor of British PoliticsHad it been any other any other Brexit voting Professor of British Politics I might have read and viewed what was being said with an open mind (even being on the Daily Mail's website), but when the Professor in question is also the Director of the UK Prosperity Centre for the Legatum Institute (pro Brexit, questionable ideas) and has also co authored a number of books including "National Populism : The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy", "Brexit : Why Britain Voted To Leave The European Union" and "Revolt On The Right : Explaining Support For The Radical Right In Britain"....well I hope you'll understand why I might have read and viewed what was being said with just the hugest amount of scepticism. Thanks for sharing though. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 17, 2021 11:21:28 GMT
This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. There are NO threats to free speech, it is just a lot of people don't understand what free speech is, & they also want to be able to say whatever they want without any consequence. Its appealing to a certain type of person who moans that you can't say X anymore straight after they have said X. But the good news is this means the government will be u-turning on these decisions A rather different 'lived perspective' on the matter from a Professor of British PoliticsGoodwin’s fear of suppression is somewhat undermined by him having not been suppressed in any way. Not demoted in anyway, free to rant away on Twitter to his heart’s content, free to appear on TV. So anyway what’s he written. He only cites two actual examples of academics being disciplined for “non-conforming views”, despite claiming there’s a long list earlier in his piece. His first example, Kathleen Stock, is still in her position, and even got given an OBE. For what I’m not sure, extolling views the government likes I guess. What a triumph of academic independence to be the government’s lapdog. The second example is Jordan Peterson (wow what a great example of a totally typical university academic /s). Goodwin provides no context for his case. So he was invited to be a visiting fellow at Cambridge’s Faculty of Divinity. You know, dedicated to study of religions. Not the sort of place you want a person who denigrates one particular religion, by say proudly posing with someone with “I am an Islamophobe” on a T-shirt, which Cambridge explained here was their reason for withdrawing the invitation. I dunno, seems logical enough to me. Maybe you disagree. Goodwin cites unnamed studies which apparently prove only 1/10 academics are Tories and 3/4 academics voted for parties other than the Tories. So what’s the solution to that? Fire enough left wing academics until there’s a better balance? Demand all universities hire only Tories for five years? More pertinently, why does a lot of academics happening to hold a rival opinions to him endanger his free speech? There’s no explanation. His list of studies goes on to 2/3 of universities have had “free speech controversy” in last 4 years. What does that term mean? Define it. It’s too loose to be of use to anyone. He claims his point of using these studies is to claim that academics don’t reflect the wider British society. Apparently this means that all those poor students will be unprepared for the “array of views that they will meet in the real world”. Wow what a downright condescending view of students. The idea that their feeble minds can’t stomach the array of views in the world without academics teaching them so first. How utterly contemptuous of your students must you be to think they can’t handle an opinion without first being prepped by an academic. If that’s the view Goodwin has of his students, no wonder he’s unpopular with them.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 17, 2021 11:30:12 GMT
Goodwin’s fear of suppression is somewhat undermined by him having not been suppressed in any way. Not demoted in anyway, free to rant away on Twitter to his heart’s content, free to appear on TV. So anyway what’s he written. He only cites two actual examples of academics being disciplined for “non-conforming views”, despite claiming there’s a long list earlier in his piece. His first example, Kathleen Stock, is still in her position, and even got given an OBE. For what I’m not sure, extolling views the government likes I guess. What a triumph of academic independence to be the government’s lapdog. The second example is Jordan Peterson (wow what a great example of a totally typical university academic /s). Goodwin provides no context for his case. So he was invited to be a visiting fellow at Cambridge’s Faculty of Divinity. You know, dedicated to study of religions. Not the sort of place you want a person who denigrates one particular religion, by say proudly posing with someone with “I am an Islamophobe” on a T-shirt, which Cambridge explained here was their reason for withdrawing the invitation. I dunno, seems logical enough to me. Maybe you disagree. Goodwin cites unnamed studies which apparently prove only 1/10 academics are Tories and 3/4 academics voted for parties other than the Tories. So what’s the solution to that? Fire enough left wing academics until there’s a better balance? Demand all universities hire only Tories for five years? More pertinently, why does a lot of academics happening to hold a rival opinions to him endanger his free speech? There’s no explanation. His list of studies goes on to 2/3 of universities have had “free speech controversy” in last 4 years. What does that term mean? Define it. It’s too loose to be of use to anyone. He claims his point of using these studies is to claim that academics don’t reflect the wider British society. Apparently this means that all those poor students will be unprepared for the “array of views that they will meet in the real world”. Wow what a downright condescending view of students. The idea that their feeble minds can’t stomach the array of views in the world without academics teaching them so first. How utterly contemptuous of your students must you be to think they can’t handle an opinion without first being prepped by an academic. If that’s the view Goodwin has of his students, no wonder he’s unpopular with them. I don't really want enter this debate, but your comment highlighted brings to mind something I read many years ago written by Richard Nixon when he said that people whose views were of the right tended to go into the private sector where more money could be made, whereas people on the left tended to gravitate more towards public sector and academia. I don't think it was intended as an attack on the public sector or academia, more an explanation of why the centre of gravity in those areas tended to be towards the left.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 17, 2021 11:43:12 GMT
Goodwin’s fear of suppression is somewhat undermined by him having not been suppressed in any way. Not demoted in anyway, free to rant away on Twitter to his heart’s content, free to appear on TV. So anyway what’s he written. He only cites two actual examples of academics being disciplined for “non-conforming views”, despite claiming there’s a long list earlier in his piece. His first example, Kathleen Stock, is still in her position, and even got given an OBE. For what I’m not sure, extolling views the government likes I guess. What a triumph of academic independence to be the government’s lapdog. The second example is Jordan Peterson (wow what a great example of a totally typical university academic /s). Goodwin provides no context for his case. So he was invited to be a visiting fellow at Cambridge’s Faculty of Divinity. You know, dedicated to study of religions. Not the sort of place you want a person who denigrates one particular religion, by say proudly posing with someone with “I am an Islamophobe” on a T-shirt, which Cambridge explained here was their reason for withdrawing the invitation. I dunno, seems logical enough to me. Maybe you disagree. Goodwin cites unnamed studies which apparently prove only 1/10 academics are Tories and 3/4 academics voted for parties other than the Tories. So what’s the solution to that? Fire enough left wing academics until there’s a better balance? Demand all universities hire only Tories for five years? More pertinently, why does a lot of academics happening to hold a rival opinions to him endanger his free speech? There’s no explanation. His list of studies goes on to 2/3 of universities have had “free speech controversy” in last 4 years. What does that term mean? Define it. It’s too loose to be of use to anyone. He claims his point of using these studies is to claim that academics don’t reflect the wider British society. Apparently this means that all those poor students will be unprepared for the “array of views that they will meet in the real world”. Wow what a downright condescending view of students. The idea that their feeble minds can’t stomach the array of views in the world without academics teaching them so first. How utterly contemptuous of your students must you be to think they can’t handle an opinion without first being prepped by an academic. If that’s the view Goodwin has of his students, no wonder he’s unpopular with them. I don't really want enter this debate, but your comment highlighted brings to mind something I read many years ago written by Richard Nixon when he said that people whose views were of the right tended to go into the private sector where more money could be made, whereas people on the left tended to gravitate more towards public sector and academia. I don't think it was intended as an attack on the public sector or academia, more an explanation of why the centre of gravity in those areas tended to be towards the left. Well, points to Tricky Dick here. Even he could make an astute observation, and one which I think has gotten truer over time, especially with the niche-ification (if that's a word) of the internet, creating entire spheres where you can have certain p[olitical beliefs and not only make money, but thrive. Look to Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro or Prager U (A place, I suspect, Mr Godwin would find rather appealing).
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 17, 2021 11:51:59 GMT
Rocks have been blasted from the surface of Mars by asteroid impacts. |
Some of those rocks have landed on Earth as meteorites. |
Some of their atoms will have dispersed into the atmosphere. |
Some of them will have eventually entered the ecosystem. |
I have eaten some of them. |
Some atoms in my body tissues came from Mars. |
I am a Martian.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 17, 2021 12:04:01 GMT
I don't really want enter this debate, but your comment highlighted brings to mind something I read many years ago written by Richard Nixon when he said that people whose views were of the right tended to go into the private sector where more money could be made, whereas people on the left tended to gravitate more towards public sector and academia. I don't think it was intended as an attack on the public sector or academia, more an explanation of why the centre of gravity in those areas tended to be towards the left. Well, points to Tricky Dick here. Even he could make an astute observation, and one which I think has gotten truer over time, especially with the niche-ification (if that's a word) of the internet, creating entire spheres where you can have certain p[olitical beliefs and not only make money, but thrive. Look to Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro or Prager U (A place, I suspect, Mr Godwin would find rather appealing). Agreed, there are for example 'media organisations' some of which seem to have become recognised by inclusion in round-table discussion shows etc. and yet to me their journalists appear to be primarily campaigners for Corbynism and other similarly far-left beliefs. This would have been impossible to achieve before the internet, at least in terms of reach and visibility.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 17, 2021 12:41:38 GMT
Rocks have been blasted from the surface of Mars by asteroid impacts. |
Some of those rocks have landed on Earth as meteorites. |
Some of their atoms will have dispersed into the atmosphere. |
Some of them will have eventually entered the ecosystem. |
I have eaten some of them. |
Some atoms in my body tissues came from Mars. |
I am a Martian.
Aren't Rules of Origin more relevant to the brexit thread where we sometimes discuss these technicalities?
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 17, 2021 12:48:21 GMT
Rocks have been blasted from the surface of Mars by asteroid impacts. |
Some of those rocks have landed on Earth as meteorites. |
Some of their atoms will have dispersed into the atmosphere. |
Some of them will have eventually entered the ecosystem. |
I have eaten some of them. |
Some atoms in my body tissues came from Mars. |
I am a Martian.
Aren't Rules of Origin more relevant to the brexit thread where we sometimes discuss these technicalities?
| I am no longer eligible for shipment to NI because Mars is not yet part of the Galactic Federation.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 18, 2021 21:27:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 19, 2021 17:47:36 GMT
It's worth noting that the 'unlawfully' relates to the failure to publish information about the awarding of some of the contracts, at least as fully as required and within the required timeframe of 30 days (which is of course important so we know what is done with our money.)
But it was not related to the awarding of the contracts themselves, though, unsurprisingly, some seem to be attempting to imply otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 19, 2021 19:16:54 GMT
It's worth noting that the 'unlawfully' relates to the failure to publish information about the awarding of some of the contracts, at least as fully as required and within the required timeframe of 30 days (which is of course important so we know what is done with our money.)
But it was not related to the awarding of the contracts themselves, though, unsurprisingly, some seem to be attempting to imply otherwise.
Indeed, and the government could have simply conceded that point rather than be dragged through court...costing the taxpayer £200,000 in the process. Exactly. Tone deaf government thinking they are above the law.
|
|