International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   General UK politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346868)

Carrot Flower King 10th February 2021 05:12 AM

And, yet again, why a head of state at all?

Carrot Flower King 10th February 2021 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13389122)
I am all for the monarchy. Rather have a nice but dim monarch in place than some autocrat like Putin or some communist people's republic. Keeps out the fascists, too, as technically the Queen 'appoints' the Prime Minister once elected. Sure the 'men in grey' see to all this, but technically she could stop an incoming totalitarian regime in its tracks.

Bolded - false equivalence.

Italicised - the Windsors (or whatever they change their name to at a point Windsor becomes inconvenient) and their relatives have a recent history which very much says otherwise.

Captain_Swoop 10th February 2021 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King (Post 13390287)
And, yet again, why a head of state at all?

Someone has to live in a Palace and got to banquets to shake hands with foreigners on our behalf.

Airfix 10th February 2021 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King (Post 13390287)
And, yet again, why a head of state at all?

Every other sovereign state has one, it's convention.

Darat 10th February 2021 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 13389144)
This presumes that somebody needs to be at least the nominal head of state. Why?

…snip…

I’d say we have two at the moment, one is the monarch the other the PM.

For all practical purposes we could reduce that to just the PM.

Darat 10th February 2021 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13389173)
Utter nonsense. The Generals, Admirals, Wing Commanders of the Armed Forces have all pledged allegiance to the Crown. Should there be some kind of peasants' uprising or a Dominic Cummings' far right attempt at a coup d'état, whose side do you think the armed forces will be on. They are unelected and there is nothing you can do about it, other than pass a Bill through Parliament to abolish the monarchy, which I doubt the Queen's lawyers will advise her to sign off.

Make your mind up about the type of authoritarian government coming into power that you think the monarch could resist.

Carrot Flower King 10th February 2021 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airfix (Post 13390301)
Every other sovereign state has one, it's convention.

That still isn't an answer, y'know, with reasons'n'that.

Carrot Flower King 10th February 2021 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13390296)
Someone has to live in a Palace and got to banquets to shake hands with foreigners on our behalf.

I can do that. Giz a job!

Darat 10th February 2021 05:59 AM

“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.

Airfix 10th February 2021 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13390336)
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.

Well said.

Vixen 10th February 2021 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13389350)
If parliament presented a bill and the queen refused to sign what then?
Do you think it would just not be implemented?


Let's have President Gove or President Swivel-Eyed Loony instead of the devil we know.


Yes, I fully believe the Establishment (which is two-thirds NOT elected, such as the Armed Forces) do have a contingency plan ready should some upstart from the House of Commons decide they want to get rid of the monarchy.

Vixen 10th February 2021 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13390308)
I’d say we have two at the moment, one is the monarch the other the PM.

For all practical purposes we could reduce that to just the PM.

NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Vixen 10th February 2021 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13390309)
Make your mind up about the type of authoritarian government coming into power that you think the monarch could resist.

Having a monarchy in effect upholds the parliamentarian system. Sure Johnson and Cummings tried to dismantle it with some success - and much opposition from the High Court/Supreme Court judges (also unelected establishment - see how many judges are Barons and Earls) - but another three years and the country can democratically vote them out!


Look what came after the Romanovs: at first a benign Bolshevik Workers Revolutionary Party which within seven years evolved into Stalin's iron fist horror show - oppressive central committee communism lasting all the way up until 1996.

Vixen 10th February 2021 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13390336)
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.

It is shocking to realise that three years later after Grenfell, hundreds of thousands of people are still living in technically dangerous buildings. People who lived in two particular tower blocks in Swiss Cottage LB Camden, had much tv coverage of having to move out immediately in the aftermath to temporary accommodation (such as the ramshackle Premier Inn in Euston Road and similar budget dives). Now they are back again in the same dodgy buildings with Camden claiming the hazard was the fire doors which has now been fixed.

Quote:

On 23 June, Camden Council stated that 800 homes in the five tower blocks were being evacuated in order to undertake "urgent fire safety works".[8] On 24 June, 83 people were refusing to leave, and council leader Georgia Gould said this would "become a matter for the fire services".[9]

By 31 July, the decision had been reversed and residents were ordered to vacate the temporary accommodation and move back into the flats. An issue with fire doors had been found and rectified. No information had been given on the safety of the cladding. A resident, Letitia Esposito, challenged the decision in the high court. As of July 2017 the judgement was pending.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcots_Estate

Swiss Cottage is quite a well-heeled area, similar to Kensington, where Grenfell happened. Once again we see the rich living side by side the poor in knowingly dangerous conditions because they have nowhere else to go.

Captain_Swoop 10th February 2021 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13390336)
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.


It's the Tory way.

How else are they going to get public money to their friends?

Captain_Swoop 10th February 2021 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13390362)
Let's have President Gove or President Swivel-Eyed Loony instead of the devil we know.


Yes, I fully believe the Establishment (which is two-thirds NOT elected, such as the Armed Forces) do have a contingency plan ready should some upstart from the House of Commons decide they want to get rid of the monarchy.

You mean a military coup?

You are assuming the squaddies would go along with Colonel Blimp telling them to overthrow the government.

Airfix 10th February 2021 01:05 PM

It's absurd to even contemplate a coup.

P.J. Denyer 10th February 2021 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13390336)
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.


I'd like to know how many companies that knowingly profited by producing 'fire resistant' cladding that wasn't or cutting corners on the installations will profit again doing remedial work.

Airfix 10th February 2021 02:02 PM

There have been concerns about cladding since the 1980's.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Darat 10th February 2021 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airfix (Post 13390951)
There have been concerns about cladding since the 1980's.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

And?

Mojo 10th February 2021 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13390376)
(also unelected establishment - see how many judges are Barons and Earls)


Er, what?

catsmate 11th February 2021 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airfix (Post 13390280)
"Do we keep the Monarchy, or scrap the Monarchy ?"

Bollocks. That's the sort of stupidity that lead to the Brexit mess.Alternatives first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airfix (Post 13390280)
You could have a follow on referendum:
Should the PM become head of state, or the speaker of the house (of Commons) ?

Or an elected head of state. But either way this should be established first.

catsmate 11th February 2021 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airfix (Post 13390866)
It's absurd to even contemplate a coup.

Right.....

Vixen 11th February 2021 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 13391333)
Er, what?

Make no mistake. A massive portion of UK land is owned by the aristocracy. Read the resumés of High Court judges, chocca with barons and dukes. Do you really believe nouveau riche 'Boris' who got a bursary to go to Eton has a chance of usurping the entire establishment - of which the Queen is the mere head - or has absolutely any hope of abolishing the monarchy and installing himself as supreme dicator? No chance.

List of Supreme Court Judges - these are the real toffs - past and present:

List
The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, first President (retired 30 September 2012)
The Lord Hope of Craighead, first Deputy President (retired 26 June 2013)
The Lord Saville of Newdigate (retired 30 September 2010)
The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (died in office 26 June 2011)
The Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (retired 17 March 2013)
The Baroness Hale of Richmond (retired 10 January 2020)
The Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (retired 9 April 2012)
The Lord Mance (retired 6 June 2018)
The Lord Collins of Mapesbury (retired 7 May 2011)
The Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore (retired 30 September 2020)
The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony (retired 4 September 2017)

You can see the current list of twelve here.

The supplementary panel currently consists of:[26]

Quote:

The Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (former President of the Supreme Court; Justice of the Supreme Court; Master of the Rolls)
The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales)
Lord Hughes of Ombersley (former Justice of the Supreme Court)
Lord Sumption (former Justice of the Supreme Court)
If you mistakenly thought 'Boris' was posh, think again! Do you think these guys are going to give up their toff privileges by abolishing the monarchy? Yes, Murdoch wants them out as they get in the way a bit, see pre-Brexit headlines calling them traitors of the realm.

Then we haven't even started on the Armed Forces. Whose side will they take? Not 'Boris'' nor Keir, I'm afraid.

Democracy only goes so far in the UK.

The Don 11th February 2021 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13391723)
Make no mistake. A massive portion of UK land is owned by the aristocracy. Read the resumés of High Court judges, chocca with barons and dukes. Do you really believe nouveau riche 'Boris' who got a bursary to go to Eton has a chance of usurping the entire establishment - of which the Queen is the mere head - or has absolutely any hope of abolishing the monarchy and installing himself as supreme dicator? No chance.

List of Supreme Court Judges - these are the real toffs - past and present:

List
The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, first President (retired 30 September 2012)
The Lord Hope of Craighead, first Deputy President (retired 26 June 2013)
The Lord Saville of Newdigate (retired 30 September 2010)
The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (died in office 26 June 2011)
The Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (retired 17 March 2013)
The Baroness Hale of Richmond (retired 10 January 2020)
The Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (retired 9 April 2012)
The Lord Mance (retired 6 June 2018)
The Lord Collins of Mapesbury (retired 7 May 2011)
The Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore (retired 30 September 2020)
The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony (retired 4 September 2017)

You can see the current list of twelve here.

The supplementary panel currently consists of:[26]



If you mistakenly thought 'Boris' was posh, think again! Do you think these guys are going to give up their toff privileges by abolishing the monarchy? Yes, Murdoch wants them out as they get in the way a bit, see pre-Brexit headlines calling them traitors of the realm.

Then we haven't even started on the Armed Forces. Whose side will they take? Not 'Boris'' nor Keir, I'm afraid.

Democracy only goes so far in the UK.

Rubbish. They are given peerages for their service to the legal profession. For example Baroness Hale:

Quote:

Brenda Marjorie Hale[4] was born on 31 January 1945 in Leeds, West Riding of Yorkshire. Both her parents were headteachers. She has two sisters. Hale lived in Redcar until the age of three when she moved with her parents to Richmond, North Yorkshire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda...le_of_Richmond

Not a toff

Captain_Swoop 11th February 2021 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13391723)
Make no mistake. A massive portion of UK land is owned by the aristocracy. Read the resumés of High Court judges, chocca with barons and dukes. Do you really believe nouveau riche 'Boris' who got a bursary to go to Eton has a chance of usurping the entire establishment - of which the Queen is the mere head - or has absolutely any hope of abolishing the monarchy and installing himself as supreme dicator? No chance.

List of Supreme Court Judges - these are the real toffs - past and present:

List
The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, first President (retired 30 September 2012)
The Lord Hope of Craighead, first Deputy President (retired 26 June 2013)
The Lord Saville of Newdigate (retired 30 September 2010)
The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (died in office 26 June 2011)
The Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (retired 17 March 2013)
The Baroness Hale of Richmond (retired 10 January 2020)
The Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (retired 9 April 2012)
The Lord Mance (retired 6 June 2018)
The Lord Collins of Mapesbury (retired 7 May 2011)
The Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore (retired 30 September 2020)
The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony (retired 4 September 2017)

You can see the current list of twelve here.

The supplementary panel currently consists of:[26]



If you mistakenly thought 'Boris' was posh, think again! Do you think these guys are going to give up their toff privileges by abolishing the monarchy? Yes, Murdoch wants them out as they get in the way a bit, see pre-Brexit headlines calling them traitors of the realm.

Then we haven't even started on the Armed Forces. Whose side will they take? Not 'Boris'' nor Keir, I'm afraid.

Democracy only goes so far in the UK.

They get the titles later.
it's a reward for public service.

They weren't titles they inherited.

If Parliament voted to get rid of the monarchy there's nothing that any Lord or Baroness could do about it.

The armed forces will follow the orders they are given by the government.

You don't think the army will storm parliament to protect the queen do you?

GlennB 11th February 2021 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13391840)
The armed forces will follow the orders they are given by the government.

You don't think the army will storm parliament to protect the queen do you?

I suspect the armed forces will (among many other things) ask themselves who pays their wages and pensions ;)

Vixen 11th February 2021 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13391840)
They get the titles later.
it's a reward for public service.

They weren't titles they inherited.

If Parliament voted to get rid of the monarchy there's nothing that any Lord or Baroness could do about it.

The armed forces will follow the orders they are given by the government.

You don't think the army will storm parliament to protect the queen do you?

David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury for one.*

It's all hypothetical. However, it is an illusion to believe you can just sweep away the Monarchy tomorrow. You have omitted to realise there would be strong influential resistance to it. People believe the UK is a democracy but it is only a limited one.

*OK, so not a good example.

zooterkin 11th February 2021 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13392035)
David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury for one.*

It's all hypothetical. However, it is an illusion to believe you can just sweep away the Monarchy tomorrow. You have omitted to realise there would be strong influential resistance to it. People believe the UK is a democracy but it is only a limited one.

*OK, so not a good example.

Can you find any that are not life peers?

catsmate 12th February 2021 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 13392035)
David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury for one.*

It's all hypothetical. However, it is an illusion to believe you can just sweep away the Monarchy tomorrow. You have omitted to realise there would be strong influential resistance to it. People believe the UK is a democracy but it is only a limited one.

*OK, so not a good example.

I fail to see your point in the citation of Baron Neuberger, or indeed in your previous list. They are life-peers, ennobled for public service with no inheritance of the title and no land grant.
Few of them even sit in the House of Lords.

Captain_Swoop 12th February 2021 04:21 AM

I fail to see how or why they would lead a coup against a parliament that voted to scrap the monarchy.

Darat 12th February 2021 04:27 AM

We are now into CT land.

Any chance we can talk about general UK politics?

Such as the latest from our Minster of Bullying: Black Lives Matter protests were ‘dreadful’, Priti Patel says

Given her body of work I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was only talking about violent protests.

sphenisc 12th February 2021 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13393066)
I fail to see how or why they would lead a coup against a parliament that voted to scrap the monarchy.

When a lord whispers "Don't you think Boris looks tired?", it's just a matter of time.

Captain_Swoop 12th February 2021 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphenisc (Post 13393091)
When a lord whispers "Don't you think Boris looks tired?", it's just a matter of time.

Yes because that wasn't the most ridiculous thing ever.

Darat 12th February 2021 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphenisc (Post 13393091)
When a time lord whispers "Don't you think Boris looks tired?", it's just a matter of time.

FTFY

catsmate 12th February 2021 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13393068)
We are now into CT land.

Any chance we can talk about general UK politics?

Such as the latest from our Minster of Bullying: Black Lives Matter protests were ‘dreadful’, Priti Patel says

Given her body of work I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was only talking about violent protests.

To be fair, she's a brown person in the Conservative party; hence to be seen as "one of us" she has to me more militantly bigoted than the run-of-the-mill Tory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13393100)
Yes because that wasn't the most ridiculous thing ever.

Unfortunately not even close.

Vixen 12th February 2021 06:04 PM

The UK Economy
 
Economics

This is a little bit to do with Covid19 vaccine rollout recovery but more to do with post-Brexit and Bank of England recent actions. I was wondering why the pound was much stronger, with my latest salary in the bank (from the UK) looking much healthier than recent months, converted to Euros. In other words, from buying few Euros at one point (EUR1/GBP0.94) it is now buying rather more (€1/£0.87).

Now, we know Brexit hasn't exactly made the UK strong, and nor has the lockdown economy from Covid19 been any help at all, other than for MNC's like Amazon, who divert their funds overseas. The Telegraph explains it: lower interest rates meaning Bank of England gilt yields are 'bouncing back'.

For those who don't know, interest rates are closely connected to exchange rates as global money markets around the world chase each other. For example, a trader might buy up dollars when they are 'cheap'. This causes the interest rate in dollar economies to rise encouraging selling so now perhaps the Japanese Yen goes up or down as a knock on effect, with the concomitant interest rate balancing it out close behind. In effect, interest rates chasing currency spot rates creates a buy and sell cycle in the money markets. Whilst over a year ago my pension funds - like everybody else's took a knock - and now over the last nine months they have gained a healthy 5%, good, considering Brexit and Covid19. (However, my independent financial adviser informed me that most of my funds are managed in the Euromarkets anyway which was why it was doing better than I expected at the time of my query when the economy was dire).

The Telegraph is behind a paywall, but there is a Twitter thread here:

Quote:

Sterling has started the year with a bang, smashing through $1.38 against the dollar to its highest level in years.

And there's room for improvement, with analysts predicting it will soon break $1.40.

Why? Here are four reasons (a #thread Down pointing backhand index) https://telegraph.co.uk/business/202...-hit-145-year/
Quote:

The UK economy and sterling are some of the biggest winners from a rapid vaccine rollout, opening the door to looser restrictions.

Britain has a particular exposure to the "back to normal" trade as the dollar weakens on rising risk appetite, according to
@Nomura
Quote:

Lower interest rates weigh on a country's currency, but a hawkish stance from the Bank of England slashed market expectations of a move to negative rates (and it shows in Gilt yields Down pointing backhand index).

Some economists say this has been the "most dominant" driver of the pound's rally…
/continues https://twitter.com/telebusiness/sta...489132549?s=20


Because I opted for a relatively low-risk portfolio, when many other's funds 'crashed' during the recession about 18 months ago, I was somewhat shielded, as I had a fair chunk in government stocks and gilts. The people who lost out most were those who were equities-dominant (higher risk/bigger returns IF...things go well).

So in the long term it is usually good to invest in some government stock and gilts as your money is likely to be safe but have at least a third in equities and just a minimal amount in cash and cash equivalents (which is almost like stashing your cash under the mattress) as they rarely gain in value but can be a safety net if all else crashes.

Vixen 12th February 2021 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13393147)
To be fair, she's a brown person in the Conservative party; hence to be seen as "one of us" she has to me more militantly bigoted than the run-of-the-mill Tory.


Unfortunately not even close.

Remember, her parents were effectively expelled from Uganda by dictator Idi Amin, in the 70's. The Asians who were forced to leave because of his belief wealth should belong to native Africans were not dissimilar to other refuges unfairly persecuted (for example, Sephardic Jews from Spain) and many left everything behind. So I am guessing Priti Patel and other Asians, do not see themselves as 'Black' but as their own ethnicity so why would anyone expect her to be sympathetic to 'take a knee'?

No surprises there.

P.J. Denyer 13th February 2021 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13393068)
We are now into CT land.

Any chance we can talk about general UK politics?

Such as the latest from our Minster of Bullying: Black Lives Matter protests were ‘dreadful’, Priti Patel says

Given her body of work I’m not giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was only talking about violent protests.

If you want your MP's attention you should donate then a few thousand pounds, don't worry they'll throw you a PPE contract or two in return.

Captain_Swoop 16th February 2021 03:47 AM

The government has announced plans for a "free speech champion" to ensure universities in England do not stifle freedom of speech and expression.

Quote:

The champion will regulate matters such as "no-platforming" of speakers by universities or student unions.

The new post - which will have a seat on the Office for Students' (OfS) board - is part of a series of proposals, announced on Tuesday, aimed at strengthening academic freedom in England's universities.

Under the plans, universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech and the OfS would have the power to impose fines on institutions if they breach this condition.

This would also extend to student unions, which would have to ensure that lawful free speech is secured for members and visiting speakers.

Individuals would be able to seek compensation through the courts if they suffered loss from a breach of the free speech duties - like being expelled, dismissed or demoted - under a new legal measure.
Quote:

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson warned of the "chilling effect" of "silencing" in universities.

Mr Williamson said: "Free speech underpins our democratic society and our universities have a long and proud history of being places where students and academics can express themselves freely, challenge views and cultivate an open mind.

"But I am deeply worried about the chilling effect on campuses of unacceptable silencing and censoring.

"That is why we must strengthen free speech in higher education, by bolstering the existing legal duties and ensuring strong, robust action is taken if these are breached."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55995979


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.