Off Topic Political Debate

I think I've answered that already Leo.

If Pegida decide that they want to have a rally in Cologne (which has happened), with guest speakers drawn from all over Europe, then, in this case the City of Cologne decides whether it should take place or not, in cooperation with the police. They are not welcome in the city, nor should the Cologne police have to take on the dubious role of protecting them. The same thing would apply if Erdogan chose to transfer his electioneering to German territory, and the police were entrusted with separating Turks from Kurds for the day. This is not a left vs right thing, it is a question of public order, and of communities protecting themselves. I even saw recently a group of black policemen in America entrusted with protecting a racist rally somewhere in the south - freedom of speech has its limits.

 

More students shutting down a lecture they may disagree with. Why don't they learn to debate like grown ups?


University students hold bizarre 'die in' protest 'like brats' to disrupt speaker talking about future of oil and gas

 

I don't see how anyone is incriminated in this action other than the students themselves SH. Are you going to drag up every incident of this sort which the Mail has picked up on, in order to discredit what you see as the left.

 

It does seem to be a growing tactic of the left to deny debate, just stop anybody they disagree with from speaking. Are you saying most of these groups are not on the left?

 

I am saying they are a group of students nothing else. There is no record that they belong to any organized group whatsoever. Even if they do have left wing ideals this can not be used to discredit others of the same persuasion. Anymore than the actions of some Watford fans cannot be blamed on the club itself.

You also appear to lump 'The Left' together to describe everything which you do not like - they are described as environmentalists, which can be from anywhere on the political spectrum.

 

Is a group of students in your opinion qualified to decide a major democratic issue like who gets censored? Censorship has to be a last resort to prevent criminal activity - do you trust a student body to decide this? Once you open the door to censorship you have to know who you trust to exercise it.
I am pleased you would not censor Emmeline Pankhurst - but many others disagreed with you - but it seems you would favour their right to censor her even though you would not yourself.
This is the trouble with introducing arbitrary censorship. Leave free speech free and let the police decide when laws are broken.
Can you not see how dangerous your position is? Hitler would have approved of your stance - he censored anyone he disliked -and that is the problem - censorship is a tool of dictators not democrats.

 

It's not a dangerous position Leo. Public speeches don't just happen - they are with the allowance of, and at the invitation of, institutions who assess the consequences. Sometimes the City council will allow a demo, or public speech, against the wishes of the police - and then the poor sods have to protect the gathering. I have been trying to establish exactly where the dividing line is - when a speech borders on sedition, and appears likely to endanger public safety then I would want to prevent it. I thought I had made that clear. I have already said what content I would allow, and quoted cases, what more can I do. Does your notion of free speech extend to hate preachers who recruit for IS ? If not, then you also agree that there is a borderline somewhere.

 

Then Col we disagree on what is dangerous to democracy. If you think a student body is better equipped to decide on censorship than the police then I disagree. Censorship should be a last resort. Once you allow anybody to block free speech that is in my view dangerous. A City council may be significant enough to decide on allowing a demo or not - but never without police consultation.
Some suffragettes were imprisoned for sedition weren't they? So that is a case in your book for censorship. Yet you would not.
The borderline for me is quite clear. If it is illegal it gets censored. I think you will find hate preachers recruiting for IS fall into that category. It works fine.
Your views would have prevented demonstrations against Vietnam and many other such contentious issues - sometimes we have to allow those we dislike to speak.

 

This is not an isolated occurrence there is a problem nationwide with students at UK universities, predominately left wing, attempting to silence views they did not approve of at their particular age. Many of today's socialists will end no doubt up voting Conservative at a later age. Freedom of speech should be vigorously defended if it conforms to UK laws.

 

I think there is a difference between a University and a public place Leo. The first can be termed a private gathering, and a group of students breaking up a lecture which had been allowed by the University authorities is an internal matter for the University concerned. As for the hate preachers, I don't quite know where the borderline is. Obviously if a speaker incites others to break the law then it should not be allowed - but the borderline is often not clear. If the speaker says directly 'You should beat up all the Rumanians in our town', then it is, quite clearly criminal. If he says 'The Rumanians here are all criminals, and our daughters are not safe' then it is not a direct call to criminality but........ Where exactly the borderline is I can't say. To assume that it is up to the police to decide is passing the buck, because they do not want to be in that position.

You believe in freedom of speech, fine.......but what about freedom of gesture as well. Surely if I have the freedom to use my mouth as I wish, then the same freedom extends to the rest of my anatomy (as long as I don't injure someone). So, when a footballer celebrates a goal by giving a heil Hitler salute, is this ok. ? Or fans making monkey noises ? Actually the first of these could get you 9 months in prison in Germany or Austria.

 

Another interesting fact about the cuts:

I have a supervisee who works for the Leeds Youth inclusion project

https://barca-leeds.org/what-we-do/youth-services/youth-inclusion-project

The project is funded by the Youth Inclusion Programme as part of an initiative to help young people at risk of crime. Last year it was cut from 3 teams to one team.... and now only 6 workers cover the whole of Leeds. The project is only funded year on year, so the workers as well as being stretched to breaking point have no job security or can plan beyond 12 months.

There is now only one other such project across the whole of the UK

The Project is funded centrally and part of a so-called initiative to prevent crime. All the team consider the project to be a political pawn

The Leeds team can now only afford to work with the most difficult cases:

These include:
the 3 young people who were killed when they stole and crashed a car in Meanwood Leeds recently.... and the young driver now in prison
the son of the father who was convicted of grooming in Leeds just a few weeks ago and whose identity was splashed all over social media.
the young boy who climbed and fell through a roof and was killed in Leeds recently

The worker who works with these cases has gone to the GP with anxiety and is paying out of his own pocket to come to me for clinical supervision.

Sadly , for his own mental health. I have advised him to consider leaving.


This outcome is a direct result of cuts in funding and a complete lack of appreciation by YIP staff of the tremendous stresses on the service.

Paradoxically, he says they will likely be assured a continuation of funding as a direct result of the Meanwood deaths.


There appears to be virtually zero concern from the relevant Govt departments.............

 

Censorship is censorship - yes the circumstances are different and who should deal with it is different but it is wrong anywhere

It is for the Courts to determine.

The principles do not differ - a hate or race crime is a crime and should be punishable at law,

 

After the collapse of Carillion two weeks ago, we find out today that another of the companies, Capita, that receives outsourcing contracts is in a mess. With their solvency getting very close to tipping over the edge their new CEO has decided to take action. Questions have been asked about why the government continued to award Carillion contracts despite the warning signs, yet they received around 10 contracts in the last year, compared to over 220 given to Capita. I well understand that in some cases it makes perfect sense to have an outside contractor do work for government, but I do wonder if this has now gone too far, with companies who are there to make profit taking on work that they seem to have little expertise in.

 

Where do you draw the line here Leo ? You imply that making monkey gestures at a football match may not be allowed, yet earlier implied that Charlie Hebdo were ok. ? So it is ok. to use monkey like caricatures in satire but not elsewhere - if you see some of the depictions of Arabs, and Mohammed in that rag then you would be hard pushed to see any difference. Often we allow too much abuse in the name of free speech, and free publication. You can say 'let the courts decide', but they are our servants.

 

I think the time has come - if it had not before - for the government to have to do far more checks on a company before awarding contracts worth billions. At the very least there could be a limit on the amount that could be awarded to one company or if that needed to be exceeded then some form of independent review of the tendering, contracting and performance should be undertaken as well as independent financial assessment of the company. It should alsl be cross party.

 

Both of those are your examples and I know little about them so will not be drawn further on them. My position is quite clear - it is not for an individual to determine what is acceptable - in life or print. If a person finds something offensive they shuold report it to see whether it is or is not legal. Either you have a society or you do not. If you do then you must trust it to carry out its rules. Arbitrary censorship should not be permitted.
I suspect many people would like to see the Daily Mail censored. Goodness knows it contains enough offensive material but would you censor it? Once you go there you are on a very slippery slope. It is for the public to complain and for the authorities and Courts to determine what is or is not legal.
I actually am very surprised by your stance on censorship. I think you support views on nuclear and environmental issues that some people might like to ban - yet they are to me sensible and legal - but would you risk a zealot crushing them? What is wrong with having laws and police to enforce them?
I

 

My 'stance' on censorship may not be as rigid as you imply Leo. In principle I am against censorship, and for free speech - the only problem is that some people have more access to free speech than others (by that I mean that their audience is bigger). Together with the audience which can be reached, belongs also an increase in responsibility. If you live in a system where the laws and police are neutral then fine, leave it to them.

 

I have not yet started to disbelieve in our country so I do accept that I live in a system where the laws and police are broadly neutral. So I am content to leave it to them. I trust them more than I trust pressure groups and individual mavericks.

 

We do not like it Leo, but censorship is all around us, either directly or indirectly (by exclusion). Claimed reasons for it may be national security, obscenity, pornography, hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel. The list goes on and on. These are the direct forms. The indirect forms include selection ie. which information do we include and which do we not include in order to 'influence' people. Do you think our daily news is not censored in this way ? Do you think that the image we have of a country like eg. Iran is not created by 'selective' information ? If a TV. reporter once referred to those classified as being 'against us' as freedom fighters (as opposed to the obligatory 'terrorist') then he would lose his job very quickly. Have you ever read anything good about the USSR or the GDR through our media ? This is censorship by way of 'selective' information - which is designed to create a certain 'picture' of the World which is beneficial to our economic and political system. I have the freedom to shout at the top of my voice 'property is theft' as long as nobody is listening - but when I have a couple of million followers, and the system gets jittery then the controls come in. The selective information about Jeremy Corbyn is an example of this - imagine how much more intensive it would be if he really were a Marxist. No, our system is not neutral - censorship is all around us.

Does it not register that an article about a few students disrupting a speech at Durham University would not, normally, be considered newsworthy by a national newspaper and is, itself, an example of selective information and non direct censorship ?

 

Sorry but this is more like a debating society point. Selection exists. Censorship exists. There may be some overlap.
Don't feel too sorry for Jeremy - he has social media to get his message out - much like Trump and newspapers have always had an agenda.
However we are broadly aware of what we do and do not support. I have nothing more really to add.