Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

[Tommy Tainant]

Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

No-platformed speakers could get compensation under plans unveiled by Gavin Williamson

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like fun. Highest death rates in the world, worst economy in Europe, the Union teetering on the brink and this is the best that johnson and his muppets can come up with. A nazis charter. Quite how this will be enforced is not clear but lets not expect too much. Will there be quotas ? Will attendance be compulsory ? Will Gay students be compelled to listen to conversion therapy crazies ? Will the government foot the bill for the extra security needed ?

More work for the lawyers.

It looks like the next election will be fought on culture wars rather than policy.

 

[Correll]

Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

No-platformed speakers could get compensation under plans unveiled by Gavin Williamson

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like fun. Highest death rates in the world, worst economy in Europe, the Union teetering on the brink and this is the best that johnson and his muppets can come up with. A nazis charter. Quite how this will be enforced is not clear but lets not expect too much. Will there be quotas ? Will attendance be compulsory ? Will Gay students be compelled to listen to conversion therapy crazies ? Will the government foot the bill for the extra security needed ?

More work for the lawyers.

It looks like the next election will be fought on culture wars rather than policy.

Seems like a reasonable issue for the education secretary to tackle.


The idea that a government can't address multiple problems at once?


That is the type of emotion based argument that someone uses when they know they are wrong.


You know that your defense of censorship is wrong.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

No-platformed speakers could get compensation under plans unveiled by Gavin Williamson

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like fun. Highest death rates in the world, worst economy in Europe, the Union teetering on the brink and this is the best that johnson and his muppets can come up with. A nazis charter. Quite how this will be enforced is not clear but lets not expect too much. Will there be quotas ? Will attendance be compulsory ? Will Gay students be compelled to listen to conversion therapy crazies ? Will the government foot the bill for the extra security needed ?

More work for the lawyers.

It looks like the next election will be fought on culture wars rather than policy.

Seems like a reasonable issue for the education secretary to tackle.


The idea that a government can't address multiple problems at once?


That is the type of emotion based argument that someone uses when they know they are wrong.


You know that your defense of censorship is wrong.

The Education Sec is a fireplace salesman in real life. It is entirely within his remit to do this when schools are closed and many kids are not getting any education. Conservatism in inaction.

 

[Correll]

Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

No-platformed speakers could get compensation under plans unveiled by Gavin Williamson

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like fun. Highest death rates in the world, worst economy in Europe, the Union teetering on the brink and this is the best that johnson and his muppets can come up with. A nazis charter. Quite how this will be enforced is not clear but lets not expect too much. Will there be quotas ? Will attendance be compulsory ? Will Gay students be compelled to listen to conversion therapy crazies ? Will the government foot the bill for the extra security needed ?

More work for the lawyers.

It looks like the next election will be fought on culture wars rather than policy.

Seems like a reasonable issue for the education secretary to tackle.


The idea that a government can't address multiple problems at once?


That is the type of emotion based argument that someone uses when they know they are wrong.


You know that your defense of censorship is wrong.

The Education Sec is a fireplace salesman in real life. It is entirely within his remit to do this when schools are closed and many kids are not getting any education. Conservatism in inaction.

Really? Sounds like he is in charge of implementing national education policy. Seems like an important job to me.


This is really about you wanting your side to be able to use violence and bullying and abuse of power in order to silence the speech of your enemies.


No one is going to be forcing students to attend lectures they don't want to attend.


That was a strawman you put up there, to try to avoid admitting what your interest in this really is.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

No-platformed speakers could get compensation under plans unveiled by Gavin Williamson

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like fun. Highest death rates in the world, worst economy in Europe, the Union teetering on the brink and this is the best that johnson and his muppets can come up with. A nazis charter. Quite how this will be enforced is not clear but lets not expect too much. Will there be quotas ? Will attendance be compulsory ? Will Gay students be compelled to listen to conversion therapy crazies ? Will the government foot the bill for the extra security needed ?

More work for the lawyers.

It looks like the next election will be fought on culture wars rather than policy.

Seems like a reasonable issue for the education secretary to tackle.


The idea that a government can't address multiple problems at once?


That is the type of emotion based argument that someone uses when they know they are wrong.


You know that your defense of censorship is wrong.

The Education Sec is a fireplace salesman in real life. It is entirely within his remit to do this when schools are closed and many kids are not getting any education. Conservatism in inaction.

Really? Sounds like he is in charge of implementing national education policy. Seems like an important job to me.


This is really about you wanting your side to be able to use violence and bullying and abuse of power in order to silence the speech of your enemies.


No one is going to be forcing students to attend lectures they don't want to attend.


That was a strawman you put up there, to try to avoid admitting what your interest in this really is.

So how does this work then ? And how does it sit with this governments threat to Historic England last week. Basically not to publish any research that shows the UK in a negative light.

 

[Correll]

Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

No-platformed speakers could get compensation under plans unveiled by Gavin Williamson

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like fun. Highest death rates in the world, worst economy in Europe, the Union teetering on the brink and this is the best that johnson and his muppets can come up with. A nazis charter. Quite how this will be enforced is not clear but lets not expect too much. Will there be quotas ? Will attendance be compulsory ? Will Gay students be compelled to listen to conversion therapy crazies ? Will the government foot the bill for the extra security needed ?

More work for the lawyers.

It looks like the next election will be fought on culture wars rather than policy.

Seems like a reasonable issue for the education secretary to tackle.


The idea that a government can't address multiple problems at once?


That is the type of emotion based argument that someone uses when they know they are wrong.


You know that your defense of censorship is wrong.

The Education Sec is a fireplace salesman in real life. It is entirely within his remit to do this when schools are closed and many kids are not getting any education. Conservatism in inaction.

Really? Sounds like he is in charge of implementing national education policy. Seems like an important job to me.


This is really about you wanting your side to be able to use violence and bullying and abuse of power in order to silence the speech of your enemies.


No one is going to be forcing students to attend lectures they don't want to attend.


That was a strawman you put up there, to try to avoid admitting what your interest in this really is.

So how does this work then ? And how does it sit with this governments threat to Historic England last week. Basically not to publish any research that shows the UK in a negative light.

That was well played. You asked "how it would work" and then IMMEDIATELY brought up a completely off topic issue to derail conversation away from the issue.


A lesser poster might have fallen for it.

You know, that you put so much effort into avoiding honest discussion of the issue, demonstrates that you know this is a good policy and that is why you oppose it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

No-platformed speakers could get compensation under plans unveiled by Gavin Williamson

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like fun. Highest death rates in the world, worst economy in Europe, the Union teetering on the brink and this is the best that johnson and his muppets can come up with. A nazis charter. Quite how this will be enforced is not clear but lets not expect too much. Will there be quotas ? Will attendance be compulsory ? Will Gay students be compelled to listen to conversion therapy crazies ? Will the government foot the bill for the extra security needed ?

More work for the lawyers.

It looks like the next election will be fought on culture wars rather than policy.

Seems like a reasonable issue for the education secretary to tackle.


The idea that a government can't address multiple problems at once?


That is the type of emotion based argument that someone uses when they know they are wrong.


You know that your defense of censorship is wrong.

The Education Sec is a fireplace salesman in real life. It is entirely within his remit to do this when schools are closed and many kids are not getting any education. Conservatism in inaction.

Really? Sounds like he is in charge of implementing national education policy. Seems like an important job to me.


This is really about you wanting your side to be able to use violence and bullying and abuse of power in order to silence the speech of your enemies.


No one is going to be forcing students to attend lectures they don't want to attend.


That was a strawman you put up there, to try to avoid admitting what your interest in this really is.

So how does this work then ? And how does it sit with this governments threat to Historic England last week. Basically not to publish any research that shows the UK in a negative light.

That was well played. You asked "how it would work" and then IMMEDIATELY brought up a completely off topic issue to derail conversation away from the issue.


A lesser poster might have fallen for it.

You know, that you put so much effort into avoiding honest discussion of the issue, demonstrates that you know this is a good policy and that is why you oppose it.

Well I asked you two questions. A "lesser poster" would have struggled to answer both. And you did.

 

[Correll]

Proposed free speech law will make English universities liable for breaches

No-platformed speakers could get compensation under plans unveiled by Gavin Williamson

www.theguardian.com

This sounds like fun. Highest death rates in the world, worst economy in Europe, the Union teetering on the brink and this is the best that johnson and his muppets can come up with. A nazis charter. Quite how this will be enforced is not clear but lets not expect too much. Will there be quotas ? Will attendance be compulsory ? Will Gay students be compelled to listen to conversion therapy crazies ? Will the government foot the bill for the extra security needed ?

More work for the lawyers.

It looks like the next election will be fought on culture wars rather than policy.

Seems like a reasonable issue for the education secretary to tackle.


The idea that a government can't address multiple problems at once?


That is the type of emotion based argument that someone uses when they know they are wrong.


You know that your defense of censorship is wrong.

The Education Sec is a fireplace salesman in real life. It is entirely within his remit to do this when schools are closed and many kids are not getting any education. Conservatism in inaction.

Really? Sounds like he is in charge of implementing national education policy. Seems like an important job to me.


This is really about you wanting your side to be able to use violence and bullying and abuse of power in order to silence the speech of your enemies.


No one is going to be forcing students to attend lectures they don't want to attend.


That was a strawman you put up there, to try to avoid admitting what your interest in this really is.

So how does this work then ? And how does it sit with this governments threat to Historic England last week. Basically not to publish any research that shows the UK in a negative light.

That was well played. You asked "how it would work" and then IMMEDIATELY brought up a completely off topic issue to derail conversation away from the issue.


A lesser poster might have fallen for it.

You know, that you put so much effort into avoiding honest discussion of the issue, demonstrates that you know this is a good policy and that is why you oppose it.

Well I asked you two questions. A "lesser poster" would have struggled to answer both. And you did.

The second "question" was bringing in an unrelated issue to derail the conversation away from any serious discussion of your op.

IN doing so, you implicitly admitted that you know that your position opposing the move, is wrong.


This debate is over. You admitted that you are wrong.


The topic now is why you support censorship.


Why do you support censorship? I know, but I am curious how you will spin it.

 

[ESay]

I dont understand what is wrong with the proposed bill. As far as I understand, it sounds reasonable. Free speech is a vital thing and it should be protected.

 

[Correll]

I dont understand what is wrong with the proposed bill. As far as I understand, it sounds reasonable. Free speech is a vital thing and it should be protected.

Tommy is against Free Speech.

 

[Silver Cat]

I dont understand what is wrong with the proposed bill. As far as I understand, it sounds reasonable. Free speech is a vital thing and it should be protected.

"No freedom for the enemies of freedom!"
Do you think, that the Brits should allow free speech for the Trumpists or Putinists or anybody else who disagree with the Only True Opinion?

 

[ESay]

I dont understand what is wrong with the proposed bill. As far as I understand, it sounds reasonable. Free speech is a vital thing and it should be protected.

"No freedom for the enemies of freedom!"
Do you think, that the Brits should allow free speech for the Trumpists or Putinists or anybody else who disagree with the Only True Opinion?

What is wrong with 'trumpists'?

That is an interesting and difficult question. I cant give you a certain answer on it now. Freedom of speech is a basical law and it shouldn't be infringed. But what to do with the likes of Putin regime with their well organized and well funded propaganda is another thing.

Basically, I think that a government should be able to impose sanctions of foreign entities which spread this propaganda inside the country. Likewise on foreign citizens.

What to do with a home citizens? They should be able to speak as they will. You cant do anything about that.

 

[Silver Cat]

I dont understand what is wrong with the proposed bill. As far as I understand, it sounds reasonable. Free speech is a vital thing and it should be protected.

"No freedom for the enemies of freedom!"
Do you think, that the Brits should allow free speech for the Trumpists or Putinists or anybody else who disagree with the Only True Opinion?

What is wrong with 'trumpists'?

That is an interesting and difficult question. I cant give you a certain answer on it now. Freedom of speech is a basical law and it shouldn't be infringed. But what to do with the likes of Putin regime with their well organized and well funded propaganda is another thing.

Basically, I think that a government should be able to impose sanctions of foreign entities which spread this propaganda inside the country. Likewise on foreign citizens.

What to do with a home citizens? They should be able to speak as they will. You cant do anything about that.

It is your, East European and barbaric, understanding of the term "freedom of speech". British understanding is a bit different. Their "freedom of speech" is a freedom to agree with the officially approved opinion only.
Anything else is a "thoughtcrime".

 

[Silver Cat]

 

[Silver Cat]

Don’t criticise the Muslim Council of Britain (notice they exclude the ‘Great’ from Britain).

You can’t criticise an organisation that encouraged the killing of British troops abroad.

And to think they STILL have sway in British politics?

And the only Muslim chaplain in the British Army is tied to this group of degenerate backward Stone Age idiots.

How’s that for diversity?

BBC Woman's Hour accused of 'hostile' interview with Muslim leader

Woman's Hour is accused of being "hostile" towards the Muslim Council of Britain's first female head.

www.bbc.com

 

[Silver Cat]

Some East European countries became more 'civilised' now. For example, the Latvian government to punish their citizens not only for spreading Russian content, but even for watching it.

Latvia goes further than a simple ban on Russian TV news – Riga will FINE citizens for watching ‘illegal’ cross border channels

Tens of thousands of Russian-speaking Latvians will be turning down the volume and listening out for neighborhood snoopers after a new law came into force that will see viewers of unlicensed satellite TV fined just for tuning in.

www.rt.com

 

[ESay]

Some East European countries became more 'civilised' now. For example, the Latvian government to punish their citizens not only for spreading Russian content, but even for watching it.

Latvia goes further than a simple ban on Russian TV news – Riga will FINE citizens for watching ‘illegal’ cross border channels

Tens of thousands of Russian-speaking Latvians will be turning down the volume and listening out for neighborhood snoopers after a new law came into force that will see viewers of unlicensed satellite TV fined just for tuning in.

www.rt.com

Love to see when Russia is complaining about free speech violations in other countries.

No freedom for enemies of freedom. Isnt it was stated by yourself?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

View attachment 458651

Oh dear, you are a stupid fuck. You support a law which will compel,for example, muslim students to give a platform to an islamophobe like yourself. Or a gay student to give a platform to a homophobe.
How does that work ? To have some dickhead tell you that you should get therapy to stop being gay. Its bullshit. These freaks can hire a hall and give their speech next door.

 

[ESay]

You support a law which will compel,for example, muslim students to give a platform to an islamophobe like yourself. Or a gay student to give a platform to a homophobe.
How does that work ? To have some dickhead tell you that you should get therapy to stop being gay. Its bullshit. These freaks can hire a hall and give their speech next door

Well, that is a very idea of a free speech principle. You should give a say not only to people you agree with (it is naturally that they will have a say in you environment, right?), but also to people you disagree with.

 

[Silver Cat]

Some East European countries became more 'civilised' now. For example, the Latvian government to punish their citizens not only for spreading Russian content, but even for watching it.

Latvia goes further than a simple ban on Russian TV news – Riga will FINE citizens for watching ‘illegal’ cross border channels

Tens of thousands of Russian-speaking Latvians will be turning down the volume and listening out for neighborhood snoopers after a new law came into force that will see viewers of unlicensed satellite TV fined just for tuning in.

www.rt.com

Love to see when Russia is complaining about free speech violations in other countries.

No freedom for enemies of freedom. Isnt it was stated by yourself?

Yes. And it was sarcasm.