Politics in General

[Marc Meakin]

That would be the best thing ever.

I was waiting for this

[Marc Meakin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-64467038
One down

[Gavin Chipper]

What are people's experiences about waiting for a GP appointment? I was reading this article on the BBC, and it was talking about people waiting more than two weeks. But I thought it was standard these days for appointments all to be on the same day that you make them. Basically you and everyone else ring up at 8:00am when the lines open in a race to get one of the available appointments. And you either get one that day or you have to try again tomorrow. Is this not standard then?

[Mark James]

Not sure if it's an ireland thing or just my personal GP but before covid you could basically turn up in the morning and join a queue to be seen up to about 12pm but then afternoons were for appointments that you've phoned for.

Now you always have to phone but I think it's as you say Gavin. You phone up in the morning and ask for an appointment. You usually will be seen that day, maybe the next. I don't think I've ever had to wait more than a day to see my GP.

[Fiona T]

Ours is pretty terrible atm.

You can get a same day appointment if it's urgent (as deemed by telling the receptionist what the problem is, them arranging for triage nurse to give you a call, then triage nurse calling you), but if it's not, you wait weeks.

My daughter is struggling a lot at the moment with various iron related issues - after a follow up blood test results (with problems still evident) she's waited 3.5 weeks for the doctor's appointment which then takes place over the phone.

Actually seeing a doctor is nigh on impossible.

My husband had a nasty rash (no not like that!) which was diagnosed from emailed photos. Same with a foot problem I've got - diagnosed from a photo and responded to via a text message which had no opportunity for questions or dialogue.

When I was coughing up blood at Christmas I did get a same day appointment with a nurse who listened to my chest and prescribed the appropriate antibiotics.

I haven't seen my GP in person in years - in fact I think I've had 3 new GPs since I last actually saw one! It's definitely worse since covid.

Edit: Just read the google reviews for my surgery - seems my experience is pretty typical.

[Elliott Mellor]

Not sure if it's an ireland thing or just my personal GP but before covid you could basically turn up in the morning and join a queue to be seen up to about 12pm but then afternoons were for appointments that you've phoned for.

Now you always have to phone but I think it's as you say Gavin. You phone up in the morning and ask for an appointment. You usually will be seen that day, maybe the next. I don't think I've ever had to wait more than a day to see my GP.

I think I'm more inclined to believe that it's localised to your GP. You'd be lucky if you got a (phone) appointment in the same week where I am.

I collapsed in January as a result of some sort of heart issue - it took me ages before I even got seen in A&E (and the couple who found me and called an ambulance were told it would be a six hour wait, even when they stressed I was clutching my chest and barely conscious - they ended up taking me themselves), then a further two weeks to fit a monitor that was literally a one minute job, which I gave back around 20th January (it tracked me for six days). It was late March before I had a follow-up appointment, during which I discovered that the results had never actually been analysed (because they'd just been placed in a drawer somewhere and forgotten about), and to which I was told I needed to have another scan. I finally received a letter about this the other day, which states that I'll have that at some point, and that they'll arrange to see me in 4 months time.

As a patient, that's a pretty horrific experience. I get I'm probably not at risk of death, but that's around a seven month timespan for something which really could - and should - be diagnosed far sooner under a more efficient system. I get I've strayed a bit from the doctors issue, but there is a very clear problem with the healthcare system and I think your GP must be an extreme anomaly!

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

What are people's experiences about waiting for a GP appointment? I was reading this article on the BBC, and it was talking about people waiting more than two weeks. But I thought it was standard these days for appointments all to be on the same day that you make them. Basically you and everyone else ring up at 8:00am when the lines open in a race to get one of the available appointments. And you either get one that day or you have to try again tomorrow. Is this not standard then?

Those days are long gone. since computerisation of GP surgeries came about the on-line system puts up available spaces for you to book, if you want a choice of GP then the chances are you'll wait two weeks, if you're less choosy then you may get an appointment earlier. sometimes you can be lucky and get an obvious cancellation (thankfully people do cancel!). I think if you phone and go through the third degree process you may well stand a better chance of getting an earlier appointment.

[Thomas Carey]

This was before covid, but when I got hit by the taxi in late 2019 I got there on the Sunday afternoon, they did all the xrays and stuff and kept me there, had surgery on the Tuesday and once they were happy I could use crutches released me on the Thursday morning (could have been Wednesday if I'd found a lift!) Had follow up appointments about twice a week for about a month and then monthly up until March. Was very happy with that and it's sad to see the state of stuff now.

[Gavin Chipper]

What are people's experiences about waiting for a GP appointment? I was reading this article on the BBC, and it was talking about people waiting more than two weeks. But I thought it was standard these days for appointments all to be on the same day that you make them. Basically you and everyone else ring up at 8:00am when the lines open in a race to get one of the available appointments. And you either get one that day or you have to try again tomorrow. Is this not standard then?

Those days are long gone. since computerisation of GP surgeries came about the on-line system puts up available spaces for you to book, if you want a choice of GP then the chances are you'll wait two weeks, if you're less choosy then you may get an appointment earlier. sometimes you can be lucky and get an obvious cancellation (thankfully people do cancel!). I think if you phone and go through the third degree process you may well stand a better chance of getting an earlier appointment.

Last year, I made a few GP appointments and always got a phone appointment on the same day after ringing at 8am. On one occasion the GP decided he wanted to see me in person and book me in for the next day.

Thinking about it, this discussion might have been better in its own thread, or perhaps stuck in with this NHS one, if a moderator wants to move it?

[Gavin Chipper]

Elliott, your experience sounds horrible. If someone collapsing with potentially a heart attack isn't an immediate medical emergency, I'm not sure what is.

[Marc Meakin]

Elliott, your experience sounds horrible. If someone collapsing with potentially a heart attack isn't an immediate medical emergency, I'm not sure what is.

I think if I had my heart attack now (I had one in 2008) I think I would be dead as the Ambulance and hospital staff saved my life along with the surgeon who fitted my heart valve.
This is the reason I am loathe to blame the NHS for the current situation we are in but I fear many people have died during a D post covid because they are not getting seen soon enough.
We are in a situation whereby the default setting is that its no worth bothering and self medicate rather than wait for a telephone consult.
Its easy to blame the government over this but I think a Labour government wouldn't let this happen on its watch.
Though we probably would have to pay a hell of a lot more tax

[Elliott Mellor]

Elliott, your experience sounds horrible. If someone collapsing with potentially a heart attack isn't an immediate medical emergency, I'm not sure what is.

Well if they invested the money they spent on that pointless alert just then on getting more emergency services staff, this might have been a much better experience. Not sure how they think the country is prepared to deal with an emergency, but sure lets have some notification that lets people know there is one (in spite of us living in an age of 24/7 news), even though the medical facilities would clearly crumble if one actually happened.

[Gavin Chipper]

Turns out the UK is a police state then. Surprise surprise. (Anti-monarchists arrested for no apparent reason.)

[Rhys Benjamin]

Turns out the UK is a police state then. Surprise surprise. (Anti-monarchists arrested for no apparent reason.)

A significant police operation is under way in central London. We have made a number of arrests in the area of Carlton House Terrace. The individuals have been held on suspicion of breaching the peace. Earlier today we arrested four people in the area of St Martin’s Lane. They were held on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance. We seized lock-on devices. A further three people were arrested in the area of Wellington Arch. They were held on suspicion of possessing articles to cause criminal damage. There will be further updates later today.

Enough reasons for you there Gev?

[Gavin Chipper]

Turns out the UK is a police state then. Surprise surprise. (Anti-monarchists arrested for no apparent reason.)

A significant police operation is under way in central London. We have made a number of arrests in the area of Carlton House Terrace. The individuals have been held on suspicion of breaching the peace. Earlier today we arrested four people in the area of St Martin’s Lane. They were held on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance. We seized lock-on devices. A further three people were arrested in the area of Wellington Arch. They were held on suspicion of possessing articles to cause criminal damage. There will be further updates later today.

Enough reasons for you there Gev?

"So much for the right to peaceful protest," the group said, adding the force would not give the reasons for their arrest.

Matt Turnbull, one of those detained, said the straps holding the placards had been "misconstrued".

"To be honest we were never going to be allowed to be a visible force here - they knew we were coming, and they were going to find a way to stop this," he told the BBC.

Not really. The police saw what they wanted to see.

[Marc Meakin]

'Not my King.' then fuck off then.

[Gavin Chipper]

'Not my King.' then fuck off then.

There's not much difference between supporting the Conservatives (which you hate) and supporting the monarchy, but whatever. And you're against protests too? Sounds like you'd fit right in.

[Marc Meakin]

'Not my King.' then fuck off then.

There's not much difference between supporting the Conservatives (which you hate) and supporting the monarchy, but whatever. And you're against protests too? Sounds like you'd fit right in.

No I'm not against protests.
Climate change, Father's for justice, CND I'm for all of them but I cannot see how the UK abolishing the monarchy can be better financially than the status quo
I'm all for reforms of the monarchy and in sure Charles will do things to reform the monarchy
He has already gone against his mother by allowing divorcees to be Queen.

I refuse to be pigeon holed, I'm not a tory or am I religious, though tolerant of those who are.

Also a lot of these protesters are doing it for attention, like the anti vaxxers and non mask wearers during covid.

[Gavin Chipper]

So protesting is for causes that you personally believe in?

The masses have been hoodwinked by the concept of the monarchy and royalty and the people that have all this wealth and status just because they were born into it. People need to wake up to this.

[Elliott Mellor]

I cannot see how the UK abolishing the monarchy can be better financially than the status quo

I'm not sure I agree. I think this is quite a weak argument personally, that people wheel out because it's easier than having a genuine discussion on abolishing the monarchy.

People come to Britain to view the buildings as a result of the history associated with them, not in the hope that they'll catch a glimpse of the monarch eating their cucumber sandwiches in the grounds. I'm not sure I believe that the tourism lost from not having an active monarchy, but opening the buildings and grounds up for viewing, would be so significant that it would outweigh the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the monarchy. If anything, I think you'd probably get more tourism in because you could relax a lot of the restrictions that are applied in the name of giving the family privacy.

[Marc Meakin]

I cannot see how the UK abolishing the monarchy can be better financially than the status quo

I'm not sure I agree. I think this is quite a weak argument personally, that people wheel out because it's easier than having a genuine discussion on abolishing the monarchy.

People come to Britain to view the buildings as a result of the history associated with them, not in the hope that they'll catch a glimpse of the monarch eating their cucumber sandwiches in the grounds. I'm not sure I believe that the tourism lost from not having an active monarchy, but opening the buildings and grounds up for viewing, would be so significant that it would outweigh the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the monarchy. If anything, I think you'd probably get more tourism in because you could relax a lot of the restrictions that are applied in the name of giving the family privacy.

So you honestly think that the 'not my king' brigade wouldn't teardown buck house or open it up to the homeless rather than allow monarchist tourists to celebrate the past..
Im not sure if the 'Not my king' brigade have a manifesto but I would be interested to see what they think we should do

[Marc Meakin]

So protesting is for causes that you personally believe in?

The masses have been hoodwinked by the concept of the monarchy and royalty and the people that have all this wealth and status just because they were born into it. People need to wake up to this.

So if you was well off would you give all your money to charity rather than your offspring?
I do agree the monarchy needs scaling
But i feel that if you want a legitimate target pick on the tories and the greedy bastards profiting from the war in Ukraine like the oil companies and energy providers.
Or form a political party.
Or join the principalked Lib Dems lol.
Never will I forgive them turncoat for getting into bed with Cameron for a bit of power.
I have gone off message here though

[Gavin Chipper]

So you honestly think that the 'not my king' brigade wouldn't teardown buck house or open it up to the homeless rather than allow monarchist tourists to celebrate the past..
Im not sure if the 'Not my king' brigade have a manifesto but I would be interested to see what they think we should do

I don't think most of them probably would, but they're all individuals with they're own opinions. But that's an aside - I agree with them on the main point they were protesting on - that we shouldn't have a monarchy.

So if you was well off would you give all your money to charity rather than your offspring?

I don't think this is the main point. It's not the individual royals (in general) that I have a problem with, but the wealth and status that they've been allowed to accrue.

I do agree the monarchy needs scaling

Well it's a start!

But i feel that if you want a legitimate target pick on the tories and the greedy bastards profiting from the war in Ukraine like the oil companies and energy providers.
Or form a political party.
Or join the principalked Lib Dems lol.
Never will I forgive them turncoat for getting into bed with Cameron for a bit of power.
I have gone off message here though

We can have more than one target. And the Tories are right up there on my list, don't worry.

I did stand for election once as an independent by the way. The monarchy was on my axe list, as well as most Tory policies.

[Elliott Mellor]

I cannot see how the UK abolishing the monarchy can be better financially than the status quo

I'm not sure I agree. I think this is quite a weak argument personally, that people wheel out because it's easier than having a genuine discussion on abolishing the monarchy.

People come to Britain to view the buildings as a result of the history associated with them, not in the hope that they'll catch a glimpse of the monarch eating their cucumber sandwiches in the grounds. I'm not sure I believe that the tourism lost from not having an active monarchy, but opening the buildings and grounds up for viewing, would be so significant that it would outweigh the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the monarchy. If anything, I think you'd probably get more tourism in because you could relax a lot of the restrictions that are applied in the name of giving the family privacy.

So you honestly think that the 'not my king' brigade wouldn't teardown buck house or open it up to the homeless rather than allow monarchist tourists to celebrate the past..
Im not sure if the 'Not my king' brigade have a manifesto but I would be interested to see what they think we should do

I'm not suggesting you open everything up and have it as a free for all. You could staff it in the same way that loads of other historic sites are staffed. I obviously wasn't suggesting it just be handed over to them to use as they please - that's rather a leap from what I said.

[Elliott Mellor]

So protesting is for causes that you personally believe in?

The masses have been hoodwinked by the concept of the monarchy and royalty and the people that have all this wealth and status just because they were born into it. People need to wake up to this.

So if you was well off would you give all your money to charity rather than your offspring?
I do agree the monarchy needs scaling
But i feel that if you want a legitimate target pick on the tories and the greedy bastards profiting from the war in Ukraine like the oil companies and energy providers.

It's not the fact that they're inheriting wealth, it's the fact that they're inheriting everybody else's wealth too. Someone who has fairly earnt their way to becoming a millionaire can do as they like with it as far as I'm concerned, but the royal family don't - and never have - fairly earnt their wealth. It's always been at the expense of the public, who subsidise them to the hilt because they have to pay the tax by law.

[Marc Meakin]

Virtually every millionaire has made their wealth by exploiting someone (I don't include those who have won it) along the way
Especially if you're a communist

[Elliott Mellor]

Virtually every millionaire has made their wealth by exploiting someone (I don't include those who have won it) along the way
Especially if you're a communist

I think that's quite a lazy argument to justify the royal family. The few millionaires I've known were extremely hard working individuals - one started a business that became lucrative (and put in a lot of hours to make it work), one grafted their bollocks off and became a leading expert in their field, another saved very fervently, worked long hours and gained promotions while at it (though they then died in their 50s). It's not quite the same as having an enormous subsidy that the public pays for, in order to unveil a few plaques, sit at a few ceremonies and conduct a few visitations.

[Marc Meakin]

Virtually every millionaire has made their wealth by exploiting someone (I don't include those who have won it) along the way
Especially if you're a communist

I think that's quite a lazy argument to justify the royal family. The few millionaires I've known were extremely hard working individuals - one started a business that became lucrative (and put in a lot of hours to make it work), one grafted their bollocks off and became a leading expert in their field, another saved very fervently, worked long hours and gained promotions while at it (though they then died in their 50s). It's not quite the same as having an enormous subsidy that the public pays for, in order to unveil a few plaques, sit at a few ceremonies and conduct a few visitations.

I'm guessing to make their millions they would have employed people and by definition exploited these people by keeping more money for themselves.
Yes I'm being flippant but it's communism that wants to abolish the monarchy
Russia did that and look how that turned out

[Elliott Mellor]

Virtually every millionaire has made their wealth by exploiting someone (I don't include those who have won it) along the way
Especially if you're a communist

I think that's quite a lazy argument to justify the royal family. The few millionaires I've known were extremely hard working individuals - one started a business that became lucrative (and put in a lot of hours to make it work), one grafted their bollocks off and became a leading expert in their field, another saved very fervently, worked long hours and gained promotions while at it (though they then died in their 50s). It's not quite the same as having an enormous subsidy that the public pays for, in order to unveil a few plaques, sit at a few ceremonies and conduct a few visitations.

I'm guessing to make their millions they would have employed people and by definition exploited these people by keeping more money for themselves.
Yes I'm being flippant but it's communism that wants to abolish the monarchy
Russia did that and look how that turned out

It's not really exploiting people if you earn more money than them, provided you do proportionally more work than them. It's exploitation when the work/pay equation isn't the same for everyone. If someone's earning £80k a year, there should be a clear justification as to why they deserve four times as much as someone earning £20k a year. Branding people communists for not placing value in the royals is a bit flimsy.

[Gavin Chipper]

Branding people communists for not placing value in the royals is a bit flimsy.

Understatement of the century. I'm not sure Marc has even attempted to offer an argument in favour of the monarchy as opposed to just knocking the anti-monarchists. Well he's got a whole thread for it now. Let's see.

[Gavin Chipper]

Some Oxford professors, including Richard Dawkins, have signed a letter about the gender thing and the split between the student union and the Oxford Union debating society. Here is the letter from the Telegraph:

Letter: Universities must tolerate debate
Sir,

We are academics at the University of Oxford, possessed of a range of different political beliefs, Left and Right. We wholeheartedly condemn the decision of the Oxford University Student Union (Oxford SU) to sever its ties with the Oxford Union (the Union) after the latter’s refusal to rescind an invitation to the philosopher and gender-critical feminist Kathleen Stock.

Professor Stock believes that biological sex in humans is real and socially salient, a view which until recently would have been so commonplace as to hardly merit asserting. Whether or not one agrees with Professor Stock’s views, there is no plausible and attractive ideal of academic freedom, or of free speech more generally, which would condemn their expression as outside the bounds of permissible discourse. Unfortunately, the position of her opponents seems to be that Professor Stock’s views are so illicit that they cannot be safely discussed in front of an audience of consenting and intelligent adults at the main debating society at the University of Oxford. If this were the case, it is doubtful that they could be safely expressed anywhere – a result that, as her opponents are no doubt satisfied to find, would amount to their effective prohibition.

Fortunately, it has become clear that the Union’s capitulation cannot be secured by the usual methods of moralistic browbeating and social censure. However, Oxford SU is now threatening its financial model by seeking to prevent the Union from having a stall at future freshers’ fairs. This is dangerous territory. Universities exist, among other things, to promote free inquiry and the disinterested pursuit of the truth by means of reasoned argument. To resort to coercion and financial threats when unable to secure one’s preferred outcome in debate would represent a profound failure to live up to these ideals.

Universities must remain places where contentious views can be openly discussed. The salient alternative to this, one apparently favoured by many of Professor Stock’s opponents, is simply unacceptable: a state of affairs in which the institutions of a university collude to suppress the expression of controversial, but potentially true, viewpoints in an effort to prevent them from becoming more widely known.

Signed:

Dr Julius Grower, Faculty of Law and St Hugh’s College

Dr Michael Biggs, Department of Sociology and St Cross College

Dr Roger Teichmann, St Hilda’s College

Professor Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology, Faculty of Theology

Professor Jeff McMahan, Sekyra and White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy and Corpus Christi College

Dr Edward Howell, Department of Politics and International Relations and New College

Dr Marie Kawthar Daouda, Oriel College

Dr Jonathan Price, Faculty of Law and St Cross College

Colin Mills, Department of Sociology and Nuffield College

John Maier, Balliol College

Dr Alexander Morrison, Faculty of History and New College

Dr Richard Gipps, Blackfriars Hall

Professor Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine

Kathryn Webb, Oxford Institute of Clinical Psychology Training and Research and Harris Manchester College

Dr Tim Mawson, St Peter’s College

Edward Hadas, Blackfriars Hall

Professor Richard Dawkins, New College

Professor Jonathan Jones, Department of Physics and Brasenose College

Professor Lawrence Goldman, Emeritus Fellow, St Peter’s College

Professor James Binney, Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics and Merton College

James Forder, Balliol College

Clive Hambler, Lecturer in Biology and Human Sciences, Hertford College

Daniel Villar, Department of Biology

Yuan Yi Zhu, Research Fellow, Harris Manchester College, and Nuffield College

Professor Richard Ekins KC (Hon), Professor of Law and Constitutional Government, St John’s College

Professor Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair of Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy

David Carpenter, Faculty of History

Professor Timothy Williamson, Wykeham Professor of Logic, Faculty of Philosophy

Daniel Kodsi, Trinity College

Professor Susan Bright, Professor of Land Law, Faculty of Law

Professor Joel David Hamkins, Professor of Logic, Associate Faculty Member, Faculty of Philosophy

Dr Ruth Dixon, College Lecturer, the Queen’s College

Professor John Tasioulas, Professor of Ethics and Legal Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy and Balliol College

Xenofon Kalogeropoulos, Faculty of Classics and St Anne’s College

Jane Cooper, All Souls College

Dr Abhijit Sarkar, Faculty of History

Professor Edward Harcourt, Professor of Philosophy, Keble College

Professor Michael Bentley, Senior Research Fellow, St Hugh’s College

Professor Catharine Abell, Faculty of Philosophy and the Queen’s College

Professor John Chalker, Department of Physics and St Hugh’s College

Dr Sophie Allen, Faculty of Philosophy and St Peter’s College

Professor Volker Halbach, Professor of Philosophy, New College

Sir Noel Malcolm, All Souls College

Aftab Mallick, Brasenose College

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

Good for them!

[Marc Meakin]

It's like the famous saying says (I'm probably paraphrasing here)
"I might not agree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it"
Voltaire

[Graeme Cole]

It's like the famous saying says (I'm probably paraphrasing here)
"I might not agree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it"
Voltaire

When I spoke at the Oxford Union last year about the alarming recent popularity of people filming things vertically on their phones, I was immediately shut down by the woke thought-police who refused to engage in any discussion and shouted me down with slogans like "who is this", "how did he get on the stage", "excuse me we're in the middle of a debate, were you actually invited to speak here today" and "for the last time could you please leave the premises". I've been banned from expressing my views in a supposedly free country, and I'll be speaking at length about how I can't say anything any more on my GB News show tomorrow yada yada yada.

Seriously, nobody is questioning Professor Stock's right to say what she wants. This is about whether others have an obligation to give her a platform by inviting her to speak at their venue. Which they don't.

Edit to add: specifically, this is about whether others have an obligation to continue to associate themselves with organisations that do invite her to speak. Which they don't.

[Callum Todd]

It's like the famous saying says (I'm probably paraphrasing here)
"I might not agree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it"
Voltaire

When I spoke at the Oxford Union last year about the alarming recent popularity of people filming things vertically on their phones, I was immediately shut down by the woke thought-police who refused to engage in any discussion and shouted me down with slogans like "who is this", "how did he get on the stage", "excuse me we're in the middle of a debate, were you actually invited to speak here today" and "for the last time could you please leave the premises". I've been banned from expressing my views in a supposedly free country, and I'll be speaking at length about how I can't say anything any more on my GB News show tomorrow yada yada yada.

Seriously, nobody is questioning Professor Stock's right to say what she wants. This is about whether others have an obligation to give her a platform by inviting her to speak at their venue. Which they don't.

Edit to add: specifically, this is about whether others have an obligation to continue to associate themselves with organisations that do invite her to speak. Which they don't.

I read this without reading the previous posts for context. For a few seconds at the start I thought Graeme had spoken at Oxford Union about portrait video, and got very excited about that. Having read the rest of the post I now doubt this and think it was just a joke, but am still adamant that Graeme should get to speak at Oxford Union about portrait videos, or whatever topic he wants. And I will fight to the death for his right to do so.

[Fiona T]

It's like the famous saying says (I'm probably paraphrasing here)
"I might not agree with what you are saying but will fight to the death for your right to say it"
Voltaire

When I spoke at the Oxford Union last year about the alarming recent popularity of people filming things vertically on their phones, I was immediately shut down by the woke thought-police who refused to engage in any discussion and shouted me down with slogans like "who is this", "how did he get on the stage", "excuse me we're in the middle of a debate, were you actually invited to speak here today" and "for the last time could you please leave the premises". I've been banned from expressing my views in a supposedly free country, and I'll be speaking at length about how I can't say anything any more on my GB News show tomorrow yada yada yada.

Seriously, nobody is questioning Professor Stock's right to say what she wants. This is about whether others have an obligation to give her a platform by inviting her to speak at their venue. Which they don't.

Edit to add: specifically, this is about whether others have an obligation to continue to associate themselves with organisations that do invite her to speak. Which they don't.

I read this without reading the previous posts for context. For a few seconds at the start I thought Graeme had spoken at Oxford Union about portrait video, and got very excited about that. Having read the rest of the post I now doubt this and think it was just a joke, but am still adamant that Graeme should get to speak at Oxford Union about portrait videos, or whatever topic he wants. And I will fight to the death for his right to do so.

Off topic but there is a very excellent annual boring conference in London. Graeme's proposed talk would be perfect. An example of the quality content can be read here https://medium.com/@futureshape/doormat ... 08abe38799

[Gavin Chipper]

Amazing stuff.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think this is a bit insane really. Someone's calling for Of Mice and Men to be removed from GCSE English because of its use of racial slurs. There's obviously a big difference between someone directing a word at you and it appearing in literature, but some people don't appear to be able to make the distinction. The solution is not to spend your life trying to avoid all instances of the word. It's to teach yourself about context and not to put a word on some sort of weird negative pedestal.

[Mark Deeks]

There's a limit to that. The use of the slur has to add something - as you say, context is key. I can't remember the exact usage in Of Mice And Men, but if it serves to highlight the racial prejudice of the time, then, sure. Whereas the Major using the word in Fawlty Towers didn't add anything (it wasn't funny and didn't develop the character or plot; it was just a bit egregious) and could.probably be done without.

[Gavin Chipper]

I read the book quite recently and from what I remember I think it was reasonable in the context.

Plus I don't think we should expect perfection from a book / TV programme. We can criticise what we read. I don't think it's necessary to remove something from the syllabus even if you think usage of a word is unnecessary. There's still a long way from that to a racist propaganda manual.

[Callum Todd]

I did Of Mice and Men in my English GCSE and thought it was really good. We read it aloud in class when we first went through it and I remember it was a friend of mine who came to the first use of the N-word and hesitated, looked to the teacher for approval, and was given it, so went ahead. I have remembered that moment previously and thought that it likely wouldn't be said nowadays, but not sure how it is handled in schools more recently.

It's quite a clear theme in the book though that Crooks is racially discriminated against, and even as a 14 year-old it was quite clear to me that the N-word was used in the text in order to demonstrate that discrimination. So while I understand it might not be a good idea for students to be saying the word aloud in class, or maybe even reading it uncensored, to remove the word altogher or even to ban the teaching of the book (!) I think is a big mistake. Not just because it's a good book for an English course, but it positively teaches about discrimination if taught well and understood.

[Mark James]

I think this is a bit insane really.

What's insane is not understanding that the actual objective of the story is to make people read the headline and think the looney left, political correctness brigade have gone too far again when in reality it's one fucking student that could have been easily ignored. It's irresponsible "journalism" and sharing the story is just adding to the nonsense culture war bullshit discourse.

Where is the article about me wanting to ban chemistry being taught because I sucked at it?

[Gavin Chipper]

I think this is a bit insane really.

What's insane is not understanding that the actual objective of the story is to make people read the headline and think the looney left, political correctness brigade have gone too far again when in reality it's one fucking student that could have been easily ignored. It's irresponsible "journalism" and sharing the story is just adding to the nonsense culture war bullshit discourse.

Where is the article about me wanting to ban chemistry being taught because I sucked at it?

You think? I tend to think the BBC are more "left leaning" on social issues and "right leaning" on economic ones, but individual journalists may vary. I was considering pointing out that this was just one student and wondered how it got as far as making it to the BBC. Like, what is the mechanism for that?

But maybe you're right in a wider sense. Perhaps this would be better ignored.

[Mark James]

https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

There might be liberal elements in the BBC but let's not pretend they are in any way on the left. I do think they try to adhere to balance better than some other media outlets but the best I could say is the BBC's overarching ideology is centre right.

Did you completely forget the number they did on Corbyn?

[Paul Worsley]

Whereas the Major using the word in Fawlty Towers didn't add anything (it wasn't funny and didn't develop the character or plot; it was just a bit egregious) and could.probably be done without.

The point of the exchange between Basil and the Major in Fawlty Towers is that it shows that the Major is such an idiot and bigot that he can't understand how someone could mix up their racial derogatory slurs. We are invited to laugh at him. The character is always portrayed as an out of touch buffoon.

[Mark Deeks]

Your last sentence is exactly MY point - this is why the N-word adds nothing, because we already know the major is an out-of-touch buffoon. At that point, it's just using the word for the sake of it.

[Gavin Chipper]

https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

There might be liberal elements in the BBC but let's not pretend they are in any way on the left. I do think they try to adhere to balance better than some other media outlets but the best I could say is the BBC's overarching ideology is centre right.

Did you completely forget the number they did on Corbyn?

Fair enough. I think they are a bit all over the place with their output. I put "left leaning" in quotes because I'm not sure it makes sense to really use the same left/right terminology for economic and social issues by the way. But sometimes I get that impression, though often it's just what you happen to notice.

On Corbyn, I think the main thing was his economic leftness so the media (including the BBC) destroyed him in case the trains got nationalised or something. I'm not sure he's seen as a woke icon or anything.

[Gavin Chipper]

Your last sentence is exactly MY point - this is why the N-word adds nothing, because we already know the major is an out-of-touch buffoon. At that point, it's just using the word for the sake of it.

I think using the word (outside of being a direct insult) wasn't quite as taboo back then so I don't think someone putting it in a comedy would go through the same inevitable thought process that they would now about whether they should really be doing it.

[Paul Worsley]

Your last sentence is exactly MY point - this is why the N-word adds nothing, because we already know the major is an out-of-touch buffoon. At that point, it's just using the word for the sake of it.

I think using the word (outside of being a direct insult) wasn't quite as taboo back then so I don't think someone putting it in a comedy would go through the same inevitable thought process that they would now about whether they should really be doing it.

This absolutely correct. The word did not carry the same impact back then.

Same with the dog in The Dam Busters, though this has been changed for terrestrial showings of the 1955 film, which is the correct thing to do.

[Mark Deeks]

Of course. Trust me, I know the freedom with which my grandparents used it. But a rebroadcast wouldn't be in that time, and thus the word wouldn't need to be there.

[Mark James]

I'm so woke I'm actually allowed to use the N-word in any context but I choose not to.

[Marc Meakin]

I recently rewatched Reservoir Dogs and I winced at the use of the N word but didn't bat an eyelid in 1993 when I watched it.
I think literary work should not be censored in the same way you wouldn't clothe a naked woman in a painting.
But it is not acceptable nowadays for light entertainment

[Fiona T]

Part of the study of literature is the historical context in which it was produced. Same with things like art history, which is why it's fine to go openly stare at voyeuristic pictures of naked ladies in an art gallery. I don't remember the detail of Mice and Men, although I do remember it being a good book. I guess the N word particularly has become so taboo that for a black child to hear it in the classroom could be distressing, and one can imagine a situation where unpleasant classmates relish saying it for that reason. Probably schools need to use judgement on how to handle it.

But it is interesting how our attitudes change - I remember a few years back an upset when an old Only Fools episode being re-aired where Del boy refers to the corner shop using a racially offensive term - in the 80s most people referred to the corner shop like that without intending offence. (I do remember my mother stopping us calling that saying that the proprietor of our local shop was a Sikh and probably Indian and may not want to be referred to as that)

When I was in Sydney I watched Rocky Horror which was excellent, but I did feel extremely uncomfortable about the whole non-consensual sex thing and wondered how it could be done differently without changing the premise too much - I don't remember it even registering as a problem when I last saw it 25 or so years ago! I mentioned it to my sister and she'd had the same concerns.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

You must have missed this then. https://order-order.com/2023/05/19/bbc- ... -coverage/

[Mark James]

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

You must have missed this then. https://order-order.com/2023/05/19/bbc- ... -coverage/

What's that got to do with anything?

[Gavin Chipper]

Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

[Fiona T]

Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

Nah that's bollocks. It's not (or shouldn't be) about what you can get away with. The guidelines are very clear that traffic offences are not valid expenses.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

Nah that's bollocks. It's not (or shouldn't be) about what you can get away with. The guidelines are very clear that traffic offences are not valid expenses.

In that case IPSA are even more at fault than I realised! Why didn’t they reject the claims then??

This is the problem with pseudo-independent organisations like IPSA, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, or the Civil Service - when they’re to blame they are, for some reason, never blamed.

[David Williams]

I've had jobs where I've claimed expenses, and authorised other people's expenses.

I once had someone come to me with a parking ticket. He was in a strange town, couldn't find anywhere to park, and rather than be late for a meeting he took a chance on a yellow line. I allowed it. If it had been, say, a speeding ticket I probably wouldn't have. But the point is that he knew it was questionable so he didn't just claim it and hope I didn't notice. He came and asked.

Then again, no-one expects politicians and their acolytes to be as honest as the rest of the population.