NationStates Jolt Archive

Reuters report. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL2518486520071125)

Oxford University Debating Society has asked David Irving and Nick Griffin to speak on the limits of free speech. Typically, and rather ironically IMO, there have been calls for their participation in the debate to be stopped. Several other speakers, including Des Brown, UK Defence Minister, have already pulled out of the talks in protest.

I tend to agree with Luke Tryl, President of the OUDS. Here’s an extract from a message (http://www.oxford-union.org/press/free_speech_forum_-_presidents_message_to_members) he sent to OUDS members:

“Many of you will have heard by now that David Irving and Nick Griffin are possible speakers for the forum. However the Press failed to point out a number of key facts.

These people are not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech. What is more, they will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner and with the opportunity for students to challenge them from the floor. It is my belief that pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing. The best way to deal with these views was summed up by Home Office Minister Tony McNulty on Thursday and that is ‘to crush these people in debate’. Stopping them from speaking only allows them to become free speech martyrs, and from my own experience back in Halifax, which has suffered from race relation problems in the past, groups like the BNP do well if they look like they’re being censored. Unlike OUSU, I think it’s patronising to suggest that Oxford students aren’t intelligent enough to debate with these people and I do have great faith in the ability of Oxford students to challenge them.

I should also point out that because this is a forum rather than a standard debate or speaker meeting no Union funds will be going toward entertaining the speakers and hence none of your membership fee will be spent ‘wining and dining the speakers’ as the Press suggests.”

Now, on top of the calls from the Oxford Student Union and other groups for their talks to be cancelled, Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has added his views:

“People have died for freedom of speech. They didn’t fight and die for it so it could be used as a silly parlour game.”

This smacks me as a little bizarre. Is he suggesting that free speech should only be exercised when it’s an ‘appropriate’ subject being talked about? Moreover, I get nervy when government tells universities what they should and shouldn’t be doing.

I see no problem with the two men talking, even if they are talking rot. What good is done by preventing them speaking?

Thoughts?

Freedom of speech only exists outside the court of public opinion.

Free speech actually highlights racist idiots for the mental defectives they are. Let 'em talk.

These people are not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech.If there's one thing I've learned from such people is that they'll use any opportunity to extol their views. Both sides have merit: Griffin and Irving represent a segment of the population where Freedom of Speech may feel uncomfortable and their opinions on the issue are relevant, and non-racists have every reason to shun them and avoid giving them platforms for their hate-speech.

But if they let the holocaust denier in, they'll have to let the other delusionals in as well.

But if they let the holocaust denier in, they’ll have to let the other delusionals in as well.
They are letting David Irving speak because he has been imprisoned for airing his views, not because of what his particular views are.

They should be allowed to talk. Always err (if it is an error) on the side of free speech.

Again, the best thing you can do to help eradicate or marginalize tasteless and deliberately offensive speech is to allow it to be broadcast. Censorship only confers an air of righteous indignation to such garbage. Let it air out so people can get a god, strong whiff of it, and they'll see these morons for what they really are: pathetic, sad little men (and sadly, women) searching for an excuse for their own failings and insecurities.

They should be allowed to talk. Always err (if it is an error) on the side of free speech.

Huzzah.

Free speech actually highlights racist idiots for the mental defectives they are. Let 'em talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31YPOWqa84

Several other speakers, including Des Brown, UK Defence Minister, have already pulled out of the talks in protest.
No loss there. Surprised he has the time to do it anyway considering he's in charge of two departments, including Defence at a time when we're engaged two conflicts.

I think the issue of whether to let them speak is simply an issue of how the OUDS wants to be perceived. i mean what they will say is not going to get a wide circulation and most of the people listening will be intelligent enough to recognise it as the rot it is. So the only question is whether they prefer the small risk of being associated with their views or potentially harming a reputation for free speech.

These people are not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech.
Yesterday I watched the extended version of Have I Got News For You with Ann Widdecombe. It's supposed to be a verging-on-libel satire, which means the government will get a thrashing, but Ann didn't get off her soap box (providing the panelists with ammo). My point is, give a politician a microphone and a stand and they'll give you their politics no matter what they're supposed to be talking about. And I've no reason to think Griffin won't do the same.

Not that I disagree that he has a right to 1. be there or 2. speak there though, and that the only way to defeat these tossers is in intellectual debate (not that the BNP does that with the "they steal your clothes" leaflets they stuffed in my door in '05 and the way the hijack the Union Flag). I just don't think he'll avoid politics, although that in itself isn't necessairly worrying. I'm more worried about gulliable voters in our inner cities than supposedly intelligent Oxford students.

Having said that, freedom of speech doesn't mean that the Union is somehow obliged to invite Irving and Griffin, or anybody else in particular, simply because of freedom of speech. I may be missing the context in which this is happening, but freedom of speech gives someone, anyone, a right to say something, not a right to be invited to say it. In the same way they aren't obliged to invite me to a History debate. I'm not sure I've phrased that very well.

Reuters report. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL2518486520071125)

Oxford University Debating Society has asked David Irving and Nick Griffin to speak on the limits of free speech. Typically, and rather ironically IMO, there have been calls for their participation in the debate to be stopped. Several other speakers, including Des Brown, UK Defence Minister, have already pulled out of the talks in protest.

I tend to agree with Luke Tryl, President of the OUDS. Here’s an extract from a message (http://www.oxford-union.org/press/free_speech_forum_-_presidents_message_to_members) he sent to OUDS members:

“Many of you will have heard by now that David Irving and Nick Griffin are possible speakers for the forum. However the Press failed to point out a number of key facts.

These people are not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech. What is more, they will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner and with the opportunity for students to challenge them from the floor. It is my belief that pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing. The best way to deal with these views was summed up by Home Office Minister Tony McNulty on Thursday and that is ‘to crush these people in debate’. Stopping them from speaking only allows them to become free speech martyrs, and from my own experience back in Halifax, which has suffered from race relation problems in the past, groups like the BNP do well if they look like they’re being censored. Unlike OUSU, I think it’s patronising to suggest that Oxford students aren’t intelligent enough to debate with these people and I do have great faith in the ability of Oxford students to challenge them.

I should also point out that because this is a forum rather than a standard debate or speaker meeting no Union funds will be going toward entertaining the speakers and hence none of your membership fee will be spent ‘wining and dining the speakers’ as the Press suggests.”

Now, on top of the calls from the Oxford Student Union and other groups for their talks to be cancelled, Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has added his views:

“People have died for freedom of speech. They didn’t fight and die for it so it could be used as a silly parlour game.”

This smacks me as a little bizarre. Is he suggesting that free speech should only be exercised when it’s an ‘appropriate’ subject being talked about? Moreover, I get nervy when government tells universities what they should and shouldn’t be doing.

I see no problem with the two men talking, even if they are talking rot. What good is done by preventing them speaking?

Thoughts?


If they don't appear in public, how can anybody pie snipe them?

If they don't appear in public, how can I pie snipe them?
I know what you're really thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31YPOWqa84

Exactly. What if he was given a prime-time slot and nobody watched? Oh, they would for a week or two, sure. Novelty does that...and sunshine disinfects.

I dunno...denying the right to deny the Holocaust is a sure way to make sure more people do it.

No cause or viewpoint, right or wrong, ever went away because it was ignored. It just goes underground and festers.

I quite agree. Des Brown, and incidentally I really do think having a minister called "Des" provides an insight into New Labour, can appeal to ethnic voters all he wants by pulling out of the discussion, however, I fail to see why the presence of Mr.Griffen provides such cause for consternation. The man is entitled to his opinion upon the reality of free speech; indeed, how he reconciles this to the opinions of his party and himself should provide for a far more interesting and compelling debate than the typical group of self-satisfied, metropolitan yet essentially vacuous commentators upon free speech.

Unsurprisingly, NUS accomplishes the task not only of misinterpreting Mr. Griffen's invitation, and thus of promoting the sort of left-wing circle jerk they give legitimacy to. They also forget that Mr. Griffen, unlike almost all their mediocre organisation, is a Cambridge graduate.

They also forget that Mr. Griffen, unlike almost all their mediocre organisation, is a Cambridge graduate.

And this is pertinent to the debate how exactly?

And this is pertinent to the debate how exactly?

Just a point that I felt should be raised. Much as Mr. Griffen's views are a little extreme, it is worth noting that he is not the common thug some paint him as.

That and the fact I loathe NUS with a passion of course....:D

Just a point that I felt should be raised. Much as Mr. Griffen's views are a little extreme, it is worth noting that he is not the common thug some paint him as.
An education does not automatically make some one more than a common thug by itself.

Just a point that I felt should be raised. Much as Mr. Griffen's views are a little extreme, it is worth noting that he is not the common thug some paint him as.
Cambridge students are not the paragons of respectability you make them out to be. There is a lot of oneupmanship and power-struggling going on. People get to positions of recognition in Cambridge through supplanting and overthrowing each other, which they willingly do regardless of integrity or strength of purpose. I certainly wouldn't trust any of my peers in government.

Just a point that I felt should be raised. Much as Mr. Griffen's views are a little extreme, it is worth noting that he is not the common thug some paint him as.

That and the fact I loathe NUS with a passion of course....:D

Just because he went to Cambridge does not mean he is neither common or a thug. He is both. The odious little manis racist and fascist of the worst turn and has the intelect of an amoeba, as demonstrated by his appaling views.

David Irving, equally, has shown himself to be just as mentally deficient by his denial of the holocaust. The fact that a supposedly serious historian can wilfully ignore the huge amount of evidence presented sows this.

*Phew rant over*

On the other hand, I would not personally be against letting them speak publicly as long there is also someone speaking to show the opposing point of view. People like this should in fact be encouraged to speak publicly, if only to show them up for the true imbeciles they are.

Having said that, freedom of speech doesn’t mean that the Union is somehow obliged to invite Irving and Griffin, or anybody else in particular, simply because of freedom of speech.
I agree, but once the OUDS has invited Griffin and Irving to talk on their take on the limits of free speech, isn’t it rather strange that people would call for their free speech to be limited?

I really do think having a minister called “Des” provides an insight into New Labour
In what way exactly?

Are there ‘appropriate’ ministerial names now?

fail to see why the presence of Mr. Griffen provides such cause for consternation. The man is entitled to his opinion upon the reality of free speech; indeed, how he reconciles this to the opinions of his party and himself should provide for a far more interesting and compelling debate than...
Quite.

Unsurprisingly, NUS accomplishes the task not only of misinterpreting Mr. Griffen’s invitation, and thus of promoting the sort of left-wing circle jerk they give legitimacy to.
I think you’ll find most on the left supportive of Griffin and Irving’s right to free speech.

The NUS and their pandering to the likes of Galloway is hardly representative of the left. Those active in the NUS give lip service to ‘leftist’ policies to get the kids behind them then use their NUS involvement as a stepping stone to heights in the political establishment. At least, that’s my impression of the organisation and its members.

I’m glad my Uni kept as far away from the NUS as possible.

They also forget that Mr. Griffen, unlike almost all their mediocre organisation, is a Cambridge graduate.
Thank goodness he didn't go to a squalid non-Oxbridge uni like, say, York.

An education does not automatically make some one more than a common thug by itself.

Meh. It gives him a certain credibility to me; the Oxbridge application procedure is perhaps the only remaining academic system of merit in the UK. I'd sooner place my faith in the judgement of Oxbridge admissions tutors than the invective of however many homogenous left-wing commentators decide to jump on the "aren't the BNP nasty, whatever it actually is they campaign on" bandwagon.

Meh. It gives him a certain credibility to me; the Oxbridge application procedure is perhaps the only remaining academic system of merit in the UK. I'd sooner place my faith in the judgement of Oxbridge admissions tutors than the invective of however many homogenous left-wing commentators decide to jump on the "aren't the BNP nasty, whatever it actually is they campaign on" bandwagon.

Setting your faith in such an institution only belies your own shortcomings really. I prefer to judge by people by what they actually do and say rather than where they went to school, and by that judgement both Griffen and Irving are odious little hate mongers of the worst calibre.

Surprising as this may sound to those who know anything about this, NUS is really quite pissed off about this.

My own views - on the one hand, Oxford students should be smart enough not be won over by this shite, and supposedly the reason they're inviting him in is to generally try and convert him to a left-liberal kind of view.

On the other, they're being extremely stupid about all of this. The BNP is made of people who don't listen to reasoned arguments, plus it smacks of the whole taking-the-piss-out-of-Achmujenidad thing, which is really quite lame. If you're going to have a guest speaker, at least respect them and their views. If you don't agree with them, then don't bother.

If people actually want to defeat the BNP, they'd starve them of the oxygen of publicity, rather than creating a media circus about it that just gets their name into more and more peoples' heads as the real opposition to the idealism of youth, which is the kind of thing that most people quietly detest.

*sighs*

No cause or viewpoint, right or wrong, ever went away because it was ignored. It just goes underground and festers.
Ancient Rome:Christianity was outlawed. Now Christianity is all over the world,including Italy.
See? This proves his point!

Surprising as this may sound to those who know anything about this, NUS is really quite pissed off about this.
The NUS gets pissed off by a lot of things...

Oxford students should be smart enough not be won over by this shite, and supposedly the reason they’re inviting him in is to generally try and convert him to a left-liberal kind of view.
Really?

If true, that is a bit silly. It’s just not going to happen.

I thought the point of the talks would be to get a take on the limits of free speech from two persons who have been challenged, one successfully one not, on whether they should have the right to free speech.

The NUS gets pissed off by a lot of things...
Yes, exactly. Especially involving letting the BNP get involved with universities.
Really?

If true, that is a bit silly. It’s just not going to happen.

I thought the point of the talks would be to get a take on the limits of free speech from two persons who have been challenged, one successfully one not, on whether they should have the right to free speech.
Oxford students are usually very, very intelligent people, but woefully naïve.

Meh. It gives him a certain credibility to me;
It would.

I thought the point of the talks would be to get a take on the limits of free speech from two persons who have been challenged, one successfully one not, on whether they should have the right to free speech.
Well, that makes sense.

I saw the Trevor Phillips interview on the news loop a few minutes ago, and I disagree with him entirely. Whilst there may well be an element of juvenile poking of the establishment in the invitations, as would be par for the course for the NUS, it's actually a very clever little piece of showmanship. By inviting these people under the auspices of commenting on freedom of speech and provoking this kind of shitstorm of protest from people, falling over each other to condemn their right to be heard, the NUS have gotten exactly the reaction that they wanted.

They should be allowed to speak their piece(s), and we should all be free to tell them how wrong they are.

Free Speech is only for those who Speak Correctly.

Freedom of speech. These days, it seems like a cruel joke.

Yes, exactly. Especially involving letting the BNP get involved with universities.
They’re not letting them ‘get involved’ (as if the OUDS has any say over interactions between politicians and the student body in the first place), they’re letting them speak to the student body. Or at least the student body that attends the OUDS.

I never understand why folks think listening to distasteful views equates to accepting distasteful views.

Oxford students are usually very, very intelligent people, but woefully naïve.
Perhaps true, but naïve enough to all swallow Irving or Griffin’s nonsense?

I think not.


Free Speech is only for those who Speak Correctly.
You jest, surely?


Yesterday I watched the extended version of Have I Got News For You with Ann Widdecombe. It’s supposed to be a verging-on-libel satire, which means the government will get a thrashing, but Ann didn’t get off her soap box (providing the panelists with ammo). My point is, give a politician a microphone and a stand and they’ll give you their politics no matter what they’re supposed to be talking about. And I’ve no reason to think Griffin won’t do the same.
I just watched my recording of that episode of HIGFNY, and although I don’t disagree with your sentiment, I don’t see why that’s a bad thing.

Widdecombe got a thrashing. A hilarious one at that (even though at times it was too focused on her looks rather than her politics; yes, we know she's no stunner, but she's also a bloody Tory - a mental one at that!) Her desperate attempts to slag off the government stood out for what they were; politically-motivated criticisms designed to highlight how great the Tories are by showing how bad Labour is. They weren’t convincing arguments for supporting the Tories at all, and showed how fuddy duddy, out-of-date and inept a large amount of the Tory faithful actually are.

If anything, there were more Conservative jokes than Labour ones. And anyways, HIGFNY doesn’t just set out to bash Labour, it sends up the entire British political scene.

If Griffin or Irving use the opportunity to just espouse their views, then I’m sure the people attending will give them a drubbing when it comes to questions from the floor. Mostly because they’ve not actually talked about the subject they were meant to be addressing, surely a deadly sin of the OUDS.

Meh. It gives him a certain credibility to me; the Oxbridge application procedure is perhaps the only remaining academic system of merit in the UK. I'd sooner place my faith in the judgement of Oxbridge admissions tutors ...
The Oxbridge (at least, Cambridge) application process is ridiculously easy. All you need is good interview technique. They weight the interview so highly that as long as you can fake it, they'll give you a place without hesitation.

You see, that's how Cambridge works; it's all about appearences. The supervision system of teaching is about others reporting back on how much you seem to have learned, the exams are simply a test of your ability to suck up to the lecturers, the lecturers are judged by popularity ratings, discussions in halls are about feigning interest for the sake of conversation, and nobody really cares (except the hovering swarm of Venture Capitalist vultures that encircle the place looking to feast on any investment opportunity they can find). It's a complete farce. You don't really grow in this self-enclosed environment; all you do is learn how to change what mask you're wearing.

Maybe all universities are like that. But to say that political credibility is due to someone with a Cambridge degree is like saying that political credibility is due to Hugh Grant for his role in Love Actually.

I just watched my recording of that episode of HIGFNY, and although I don’t disagree with your sentiment, I don’t see why that’s a bad thing.
I'm not saying it's a necessairily a bad thing, just that I don't expect politicians not to talk about politics.

Widdecombe got a thrashing. A hilarious one at that (even though at times it was too focused on her looks rather than her politics; yes, we know she's no stunner, but she's also a bloody Tory - a mental one at that!) Her desperate attempts to slag off the government stood out for what they were; politically-motivated criticisms designed to highlight how great the Tories are by showing how bad Labour is. They weren’t convincing arguments for supporting the Tories at all, and showed how fuddy duddy, out-of-date and inept a large amount of the Tory faithful actually are.
It showed how out of date her ideas for pet names are.:)

If anything, there were more Conservative jokes than Labour ones. And anyways, HIGFNY doesn’t just set out to bash Labour, it sends up the entire British political scene.
It bashes Labour because they're the party of government and there's therefore more to bash. If it were the Tories in power, it'd be the same. At least, that's my theory.

If Griffin or Irving use the opportunity to just espouse their views, then I’m sure the people attending will give them a drubbing when it comes to questions from the floor. Mostly because they’ve not actually talked about the subject they were meant to be addressing, surely a deadly sin of the OUDS.
True, I suppose. I'd rather someone set Jimmy Carr on them though.

I agree, but once the OUDS has invited Griffin and Irving to talk on their take on the limits of free speech, isn’t it rather strange that people would call for their free speech to be limited?
I don't think it is violating their right to free speech par se - you have a right to speech, but not a right to be listened to. The real issue, as far as I can tell, is whether they should be invited - which I think is quite different - and whether other guests should boycott the event as a result. Of course, I think it's hypocritical to talk about free speech and then say people can't come because of their views, but there you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31YPOWqa84

If this isn't a good reason to let 'em speak, I don't know what is. It's like taking someone who wants to try heroin and making them watch Trainspotting.

I don't think it is violating their right to free speech par se - you have a right to speech, but not a right to be listened to.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with you, though that may in part be due to the duality of meaning in the word "listen". People do have the unalterable right to project their ideas through whatever channels are available (that is, to speak in a manner such that they can be heard); they just don't have the right to deny other people permission to ignore them.

In any case, I much prefer the BNP's ideas being publicly discredited in an open forum where I can see them rather than hidden under the carpet of the back-streets of Middle-England.

The Oxbridge (at least, Cambridge) application process is ridiculously easy. All you need is good interview technique. They weight the interview so highly that as long as you can fake it, they'll give you a place without hesitation.

You see, that's how Cambridge works; it's all about appearences. The supervision system of teaching is about others reporting back on how much you seem to have learned, the exams are simply a test of your ability to suck up to the lecturers, the lecturers are judged by popularity ratings, discussions in halls are about feigning interest for the sake of conversation, and nobody really cares (except the hovering swarm of Venture Capitalist vultures that encircle the place looking to feast on any investment opportunity they can find). It's a complete farce. You don't really grow in this self-enclosed environment; all you do is learn how to change what mask you're wearing.

Maybe all universities are like that. But to say that political credibility is due to someone with a Cambridge degree is like saying that political credibility is due to Hugh Grant for his role in Love Actually.

I feel your view of it is rather cynical and stereotyped. Perhaps for some that is true, but not a majority. People do go to Oxbridge to learn and develop, not just to get drunk every night and put off 'real' work for a few years.

Although, perhaps you could extend the view to the corporate environment as well if you wanted to. Making out as though you are better than you really are often seems to convince people more than actual results/work, I think the tv show 'The Apprentice' evidenced this well.

Anyway, back on topic: the OU have every right to invite the two to speak, if people don't want to hear it they shouldn't go see it. Restricting free speech never distinguishes the myths put forward by these extremists.

I feel your view of it is rather cynical and stereotyped.
Cynical, undoubtedly, but I don't think it is merely a stereotype. It's an observation about the system itself based on first-hand experience. I don't want to go into details (for obvious reasons) but I've been here a while, and I've found that the only thing that matters academically is whether you can put on a good show to the examiners and to your college. Genuine thought and study is incidental, and often a misuse of resources as far as your supervision reports are concerned.

You do not really grow here. All that happens is you become a caricature of your former self in order to retain some feeble sense of identity amidst the unending fictions you're forced to depict.

I dunno...denying the right to deny the Holocaust is a sure way to make sure more people do it.Why, it would be like outlawing slander and libel...

Cynical, undoubtedly, but I don't think it is merely a stereotype. It's an observation about the system itself based on first-hand experience. I don't want to go into details (for obvious reasons) but I've been here a while, and I've found that the only thing that matters academically is whether you can put on a good show to the examiners and to your college. Genuine thought and study is incidental, and often a misuse of resources as far as your supervision reports are concerned.

You do not really grow here. All that happens is you become a caricature of your former self in order to retain some feeble sense of identity amidst the unending fictions you're forced to depict.

Again, then you have let yourself become that, there is no reason you must act like that. I replied based on my own first-hand experience and people I know, and myself, certainly don't fit into that view. Perhaps it is different at other colleges and on different courses as mine.

I know what you're really thinking.

Don't fool yourself. If LG wanted to pie someone in their own home he could do it. The only trace he'd leave would be the pie, and an eery sense of clownness.

People have died for freedom of speech. They didn’t fight and die for it so it could be used as a silly parlour game.

No, they died so that people could use it however they wanted... you know... freely.

There's a difference between respecting the free speech rights of others and letting them use your own forum at your expense.

Let me paraphrase:

If I owned a TV station, I would not allow Irving to have a talk show on it, even though I support the right of others to do so- on their own TV stations.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you, though that may in part be due to the duality of meaning in the word "listen". People do have the unalterable right to project their ideas through whatever channels are available (that is, to speak in a manner such that they can be heard); they just don't have the right to deny other people permission to ignore them.
What I mean is that freedom of speech doesn't mean you have a right to be invited to an event to exercise your freedom of speech there. OUDS has a right to decide who they do and no not invite to speeek there. Griffin has as as much 'right' to be invited to speak there as you or I do.

In any case, I much prefer the BNP's ideas being publicly discredited in an open forum where I can see them rather than hidden under the carpet of the back-streets of Middle-England.
As do I. Although, having just listened to Charlotte, a BNP supporter from Croydon, on Radio 5, I still feel that just being in in open forum does not make the the facade the the BNP is 'not racist' and 'supports all indegenous Britons' (indigenous white Britons, when pressed by another caller) any less dangerous.

There are laws they can be prosecuted under if they do say anything promoting racial hatred, so let them speak. I do wonder if people would feel the same if Gerry Adams was one of the speakers - after all his freedom of speech was also removed at one point.

What I mean is that freedom of speech doesn't mean you have a right to be invited to an event to exercise your freedom of speech there. OUDS has a right to decide who they do and no not invite to speeek there. Griffin has as as much 'right' to be invited to speak there as you or I do.
And they have invited Griffin. And people are objecting because they thing it's wrong to give him the chance to say whatever it is that he says. And some other people are saying to those people that suppressing whatever it is that Griffen says violates his right to freedom of speech, and that the best way to stop the things his advocates is to let him say them, and then publically counter them. What nobody is saying, at least, not that I've seen, is that because he has the right to freedom of speech, OUDS have to let him speak at this debate.

And they have invited Griffin. And people are objecting because they thing it's wrong to give him the chance to say whatever it is that he says. And some other people are saying to those people that suppressing whatever it is that Griffen says violates his right to freedom of speech, and that the best way to stop the things his advocates is to let him say them, and then publically counter them. What nobody is saying, at least, not that I've seen, is that because he has the right to freedom of speech, OUDS have to let him speak at this debate.

Is there actually a right to freedom of speech here in the UK? We have no constitution saying there is. I cannot recall an Act of Parliament that guarantees one.

Is there actually a right to freedom of speech here in the UK? We have no constitution saying there is. I cannot recall an Act of Parliament that guarantees one.

I actually have no idea. People are saying there is and I'm hoping they're better informed than I am.

The right to freedom of expression is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention was adopted into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Both the Convention and the Act essentially limit the extent to which the state may interfere with its citizens.

Before the HRA came into force, it was already possible for UK citizens to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, if they felt the state had interfered with their human rights. The HRA made it possible for British courts to deal with those same appeals, thus saving everybody a train fare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

(Police officers traditionally moan about this a lot, and generally regard it as the worst and most inconvenient piece of legislation in the world. The smarter ones realise that it didn't actually introduce any new constraints on police activity at all.)

And they have invited Griffin. And people are objecting because they thing it's wrong to give him the chance to say whatever it is that he says. And some other people are saying to those people that suppressing whatever it is that Griffen says violates his right to freedom of speech, and that the best way to stop the things his advocates is to let him say them, and then publically counter them. What nobody is saying, at least, not that I've seen, is that because he has the right to freedom of speech, OUDS have to let him speak at this debate.
And I've been saying that it doesn't, because OUDS isn't obliged to extend him an invitation. Yes, now that this whole affair has attracted so much controversy and has the eye of the media (and it's amazing that OUDS didn't realise this would happen) he should be allowed because it is the only way to expose these people for the idiots they are and anything else would be more ammo for them, not because of freedom of speech. Or freedom to go anywhere and speak.

I actually have no idea. People are saying there is and I'm hoping they're better informed than I am.
Human Rights Act, but it's pretty upopular for reasons beyond my comprenension (i.e. the Press).

Thank goodness he didn't go to a squalid non-Oxbridge uni like, say, York.

Well quite. Believe me, insulting a university I have unreserved contempt for really is not going to work. The profusion of management and media studies morons here ensures a healthy amount of chav scum and generally undesirable students, whilst of the history students, I've so far met one who is remotely entertaining or intelligent in discussion.

And guess what? Despite having AAAAB, coming from the best fucking state school in the country, having read their course reading, and having excellent references (I've read them), the English department won't accept any course changes. Utter wankers if you ask me; I don't care if they're full, I don't care if accepting me over others would be unfair. Others are not me; they don't have my grades, or, for that matter, I'll bet almost all don't have a previous school as good as mine. I mean really, what sort of an organisation are they?

Others are not me; they don't have my grades, or, for that matter, I'll bet almost all don't have a previous school as good as mine. I mean really, what sort of an organisation are they?

That sort of sentence composition wont do you any favours towards gaining a place on an English degree course, either. ;)

Well quite. Believe me, insulting a university I have unreserved contempt for really is not going to work. The profusion of management and media studies morons here ensures a healthy amount of chav scum and generally undesirable students, whilst of the history students, I've so far met one who is remotely entertaining or intelligent in discussion.

And guess what? Despite having AAAAB, coming from the best fucking state school in the country, having read their course reading, and having excellent references (I've read them), the English department won't accept any course changes. Utter wankers if you ask me; I don't care if they're full, I don't care if accepting me over others would be unfair. Others are not me; they don't have my grades, or, for that matter, I'll bet almost all don't have a previous school as good as mine. I mean really, what sort of an organisation are they?

The world doesn't revolve around you, if they won't let you change its because they don't have the staff to manage more students of that particular course. If you really hate the place, leave and reapply elsewhere, but keep in mind that your background ('best state school in the country' etc.) won't always mean departments are clamouring to have you study there.

(I believe you went to CRGS, though clearly HWRGS was always better :p)

That sort of sentence composition wont do you any favours towards gaining a place on an English degree course, either. ;)

I'm allowed to get stream of consciousnessy when mid-rant. :D

I'm allowed to get stream of consciousnessy when mid-rant. :D
You certainly are :D

I'm actually glad you took that in the spirit that was intended... I was on the phone when I typed it and it was niggling away at the back of my mind that it might come across a little flamey. I'd decided to come back and edit it once I finished my call, but it appears that that wont be necessary :)

The world doesn't revolve around you, if they won't let you change its because they don't have the staff to manage more students of that particular course. If you really hate the place, leave and reapply elsewhere, but keep in mind that your background ('best state school in the country' etc.) won't always mean departments are clamouring to have you study there.

(I believe you went to CRGS, though clearly HWRGS was always better :p)

HWRGS? I've got a friend who went to Hills Road in Cambridge, and maintains that it's better than CRGS (it isn't;)), but I can't shoehorn those initials into that, so I'm at a loss.

Anyway, I don't want the world to revolve around me. The attention and staring would be inusfferable!:D

In all sincerity, though, I don't see what their issue is. I would have been accepted had I applied for English originally, they said so; hence if they only have 65 English Literature students per year, I fail to see why they cannot add one more to that. I am, modesty put aside in favour of truth, amongst the top 1% of students in the country, and thus likely to be better qualified than half the students on the course to read it.

You certainly are :D

I'm actually glad you took that in the spirit that was intended... I was on the phone when I typed it and it was niggling away at the back of my mind that it might come across a little flamey. I'd decided to come back and edit it once I finished my call, but it appears that that wont be necessary :)

Meh.:p

I'm currently avoiding doing a "group project", so the moral high ground's more yours than mine! Actually, I might as well ask this; do the university's of other posters require that most odious of practices, group work? I never actually did group work in history at school, and did bloody well working by myself, and am thus a little perplexed as to why there is suddenly a necessity to do it. Only our essays and dissertations matter for our degrees, and they are researched and written alone, not with other students whose intelligence and methods I distrust.

I think they should be allowed to speak, even if I do not respect either of these people. Perhaps they should just get a nice sampling of viewpoints - add in the head of some human-rights organization, an MP (the local one for Oxford will do - just get a mainstream politician), a journalist, and a rabbi. I think that covers the spectrum.

HWRGS? I've got a friend who went to Hills Road in Cambridge, and maintains that it's better than CRGS (it isn't;)), but I can't shoehorn those initials into that, so I'm at a loss.

Another RGS in High Wycombe. Hills Road is a good sixth form college, but not quite up there, I cycle past it every day on my way to town and things. Although, 'better' is rather vague when it comes to schools, exam results only show part of it, though schools do seem to focus on them.

In all sincerity, though, I don't see what their issue is. I would have been accepted had I applied for English originally, they said so; hence if they only have 65 English Literature students per year, I fail to see why they cannot add one more to that. I am, modesty put aside in favour of truth, amongst the top 1% of students in the country, and thus likely to be better qualified than half the students on the course to read it.

Fair enough, but do you think the people studying English there will be any more interesting and intellectual as those doing History? Seems likely it will be generally the same, unless you just find the subject more interesting.

I might as well ask this; do the university's of other posters require that most odious of practices, group work? I never actually did group work in history at school, and did bloody well working by myself, and am thus a little perplexed as to why there is suddenly a necessity to do it. Only our essays and dissertations matter for our degrees, and they are researched and written alone, not with other students whose intelligence and methods I distrust.
There was group work involved in some of the degree-year modules I studied at University and they counted towards the module mark for their subjects, albeit usually only 10-20% of the overall score. I avoided them wherever I could, even ducking the occasional module to accomplish this.

As I understand it, the increasing prevalence of group-based components at University is to placate businesses. Apparently, there are problems in the workplace brought about by graduates arriving fresh from Uni with their shiny new degrees - all shit hot on theory but utterly unable to actually work as part of a team.

I'm sure it's true, but I still strongly dislike the idea of having to rely on other people for scores that affect your individual academic record. I'd rather stand or fall on my own efforts, thanks very much. ;)

There was group work involved in some of the degree-year modules I studied at University and they counted towards the module mark for their subjects, albeit usually only 10-20% of the overall score. I avoided them wherever I could, even ducking the occasional module to accomplish this.

As I understand it, the increasing prevalence of group-based components at University is to placate businesses. Apparently, there are problems in the workplace brought about by graduates arriving fresh from Uni with their shiny new degrees - all shit hot on theory but utterly unable to actually work as part of a team.

I'm sure it's true, but I still strongly dislike the idea of having to rely on other people for scores that affect your individual academic record. I'd rather stand or fall on my own efforts, thanks very much. ;)

Bloody true. I'm at university to get a degree for yours truly, and nobody else. I resent seeing my efforts contributing to anybody else's academic success.

I reckon that having attended a good state school is not necessarily a plus point. Spending 7 years at a failing school and still getting top grades, on the other hand, would be something to crow about.

(In fact, the first question in my mind was "He can't blame the school - so what's his excuse for that B?" ;))

Meh. It gives him a certain credibility to me; the Oxbridge application procedure is perhaps the only remaining academic system of merit in the UK. I'd sooner place my faith in the judgement of Oxbridge admissions tutors than the invective of however many homogenous left-wing commentators decide to jump on the "aren't the BNP nasty, whatever it actually is they campaign on" bandwagon.

Not that I want to piss on your chips but in my experience, a half decent interview plus a family friend, who happens to be on the board of Downing college, writing your reference can equal a 3C offer to read aeronautical engineering.

Perhaps you should place you faith elsewhere

edit: by a strange coincidence, the college that Mr. Griffin attended.

I reckon that having attended a good state school is not necessarily a plus point. Spending 7 years at a failing school and still getting top grades, on the other hand, would be something to crow about.

(In fact, the first question in my mind was "He can't blame the school - so what's his excuse for that B?" ;))

Really? And you are? A university admissions officer? Or perhaps another comprehensive educated statistic who will accomplish precious little in life, and whose rabic inverted snobbery and fear of anything beyond mediocre compels you to embrace the system that so destroyed your prospects.:)

You see, I have 5 offers out of 6, and the fact that I am in the top 2% of A-level students in the country, that tells me attending the best damn SELECTIVE school in the country provides a better academic education than formulaically dragging yourself through a failing comprehensive. Sorry, but selective and private education offers a far better education, both academically and pastorally, than any comprehensive school. The techniques York deem requisite to a history degree, but beyond their new students, are techniques I have been taught, and mastered, since year 11.

Not that I want to piss on your chips but in my experience, a half decent interview plus a family friend, who happens to be on the board of Downing college, writing your reference can equal a 3C offer to read aeronautical engineering.

Perhaps you should place you faith elsewhere

edit: by a strange coincidence, the college that Mr. Griffin attended.

The system is massively open to nepotism, but it remains the best guarantor of calibre we have.

Keep your hair on, Chris.

I think you're missing the point: what I think I said was that getting 4 or 5 As at a failing school is probably more impressive than getting the same grades at a very good school. In other words, admissions tutors may well see more potential in someone who has turned themselves into Oxbridge material despite their school than in someone who is Oxbridge material because of it.

As you say, "selective and private education offers a far better education, both academically and pastorally, than any comprehensive school." That's precisely my point. So you went to a top school - now you want a medal or something for being well educated as a (totally predictable) result?

(My academic record doesn't come into it, by the way; but as it happens it's better than yours. :cool: )

Another RGS in High Wycombe. Hills Road is a good sixth form college, but not quite up there, I cycle past it every day on my way to town and things. Although, 'better' is rather vague when it comes to schools, exam results only show part of it, though schools do seem to focus on them.



Fair enough, but do you think the people studying English there will be any more interesting and intellectual as those doing History? Seems likely it will be generally the same, unless you just find the subject more interesting.

The English course does no group work. It leaves you to defend your views in discussion groups, rather than having "constructive" discussions where we can't disagree with each other properly because we don't all have the same level of skills yet.

I didn't know you were from Cambridge anyway...I'm probably going up for a few days before christmas, any advice where to go, or any massive faux pas to avoid.

The mores in Cambridge are much the same as elsewhere in the country, so faux pas are generally easy to avoid. In particular though, don't walk on the grass, or stand in the middle of King's Parade like a gawking tourist oblivious to the traffic. Probably won't be too many students around (depending on exactly when you'll be there) so you shouldn't be at too great a risk of being mown down by cyclists. :)

Cambridge is surprisingly small and easy to walk around, so just a bit of wandering (and a decent map) should get you to all the highlights easily enough. Walking down Trinity Street, King's Parade and Silver Street, then half way up Queen's Road and through King's College will cover most of the picture postcard stuff; and unless they've renovated/gutted the Eagle just as they've done with most of the other pubs, it's a good historical choice.

It all depends what kind of stuff you like though, really.