John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

That doesn't really answer the questions though does it? I think JP is widely known now as an opportunist whose theories have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. Perhaps they just wanted a laugh.

No they didnt want a laugh. I have listened carefully to the students and faculty members who went through a difficult time consuming process to achieve it. Or do those students not count.

Have you seen the attendance for his tours and his figures for podcasts. I dont agree with much he says but I wouldnt be daft enough to pretend that no one is listening to what he says or taking him seriously. Crikey.

Just popped back to say sorry if you were offended Iam64. I'm not really certain what being offended on the part of another person is classed as. But I apologise.

??
Just popped back to say that I'm sure that Iam will be delighted to know that you are sorry for offending her by your nasty comments to me ?.

I'm not really certain what using an apology to one person to have a thinly-veiled dig at another person is classed as, but I am amused.

I think it's called a fauxpology ?

Always happy to amuse DD after all what's better than a good laugh
"Faux"is very popular now for all sorts of things.

Any one going to explain what they regard as permissible restrictions on free speech and what is unacceptable? And why others can't have different standards?

Galaxy many people have large followings, doesn't mean the things they say carry any weight in academic circles. It is interesting that the person to host the Cambridge meeting was Kier Bradwell much maligned on this thread. JP undoubtedly attracts some people, however I suspect much of it is personal, based on his speech and presentation. After all anyone who knows anything about nutrition would regard his meat-only diet advice as plainly crackers.

Callistemon21

I think it's called a fauxpology ?

Oh the irony ?

Oh so now only people who carry weight in academic circles should be listened to. I have been really clear that there should be as few as restrictions on speech as possible and my reasons why. Could you answer why you think it will always be the 'good guys' making thses decisions.

If someone has an enormous following it might be useful to listen to what they are saying if only to have the means to refute it.

Any one going to explain what they regard as permissible restrictions on free speech and what is unacceptable? And why others can't have different standards?

This has been done over and over. The law does it for us. restrictions on free speech include anything that would incite hatred or criminal behaviour. I would see that as unacceptable too.

People may, of course, have different 'standards' (I prefer the term 'opinions, as it's less passively loaded, but whatever), but they may not enforce them on others. In theory, at least.

Clearly, there is a current trend for those who think they are above the law to disrupt meetings of people whose opinions they dislike and to threaten speakers with violence. AFAIK it is still against the law, but it is part of the trend to undermine the rights of women, so it appears to be going unchallenged by police. I wouldn't encourage students (or any young people) to break the law, however, as who knows when the worm will turn and they could find themselves under arrest and with criminal records.

"Faux"is very popular now for all sorts of things.

Really? Not in my circles. People usually get the real thing or something entirely different. Fake is a bit naff, but then standards vary.

Oh. Maybe this is another passive aggressive dig? Maybe you could explain what the comment has to do with the subject of free speech.

Doodledog

*"Faux"is very popular now for all sorts of things.*

Really? Not in my circles. People usually get the real thing or something entirely different. Fake is a bit naff, but then standards vary.

Oh. Maybe this is another passive aggressive dig? Maybe you could explain what the comment has to do with the subject of free speech.

I don't know I didn't introduce the word.

Lots of faux leather and suede about, must be popular or they wouldn't use it. Is the fact that your circles consider it "naff" supposed to imply some sort of superiority? (Although I do wonder how you know they're not using faux. Do they all go round with labels on things?)

Heavens, no! That would be déclassé.

Ah I know you smell it!

You've lost me now.

One of the few ways to tell real leather from faux these days, real leather smells different. I'm surprised you didn't know that. Maybe people in your circle have faux leather and just aren't telling you.

I tell you what no matter how much I believe in free speech I am not sniffing John Cleese to prove a point.

There are better ways of telling real leather from fakes than sniffing- that seems rather animalistic and, erm, indiscreet. I couldn’t care less whether my friends use leather, tbh - although vegans usually prefer canvas or other materials to plastic for environmental reasons. It was the ‘all sorts of things’ that intrigued me. For about ten seconds.

Very wise, Galaxy

Not sure John Cleese would be up for being sniffed anyway Galaxy he seems to be easily offended.

Glorianny

Not sure John Cleese would be up for being sniffed anyway Galaxy he seems to be easily offended.

Ooh, John Cleese is all for being offensive. Lots of interesting articles and quotes of him being exasperated by the permanently offended!

Zoejory

Glorianny

Not sure John Cleese would be up for being sniffed anyway Galaxy he seems to be easily offended.

Ooh, John Cleese is all for being offensive. Lots of interesting articles and quotes of him being exasperated by the permanently offended!

Quite funny really isn't it. He's offended because others are offended so he takes his ball and goes home. I suppose it's a form of self no-platforming but it wouldn't work if people really didn't want to hear you anyway, would it?

For those who claim that there is no cancel culture, read this:

Cast your mind back 25 years. Hanson's MMMbop was number one, Titanic topped the box office, and Tony Blair had just been elected PM.

But perhaps more culturally significant than all three of these 90s moments is the first 500 copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone being published at the end of June 1997.
It would become the third best-selling novel of all time, establishing JK Rowling as one of the world's most loved and best-selling authors; a towering figure in the arts.

But the prolific author's legacy now seems destined to be defined by the culture war sparked by her position on women's rights and gender.
Rowling thinks, in some circumstances, women and girls should have the right to single-sex spaces - prompting accusations of transphobia, which she denies.

The controversy has rendered the author notably absent from anniversary celebrations - as was the case with the recent TV reunion - decisions widely presumed to be driven by the deepening controversy.

Attempting to separate the art from the artist is now apparently a mission for many invested in ensuring Harry Potter continues to be lucrative.

Sky News was invited to a new Mandrakes and Magical Creatures feature at Warner Brothers Studios this week, and such is the effort to distance the brand from the toxicity of the debate around trans rights, Sky News wasn't allowed by the PR to bring up JK Rowling's name in the interview.

Our reporter was interrupted mid-flow and made to redirect the line of questioning.^

When we asked why, the response on email was "JK Rowling is not connected to Warner or Tom Felton, the team felt it was not relevant to the piece"... Not aside from the fact she created Harry Potter and executive produced the films.

(For the record, PRs don't and shouldn't - for all sorts of reasons not least press freedom - dictate Sky News editorial direction.)
So 25 years on, Harry Potter is as popular and profitable as ever and seems unscathed - apparently, as long as you don't mention she who must not be named.

The notion that JK Rowling can or should be cancelled is bizarre to many, but trans woman Nicci Take, who enjoyed reading and watching Harry Potter with her children, told Sky News she is largely just deeply disappointed by it all.
"I am anti-cancel culture, she should be allowed to say what she thinks," says Nicci Take.

Such is the intensity of the debate, Rowling revealed earlier this year that she's had so many death threats she could wallpaper her house with them after trans activists doxxed her (meaning they published her address and personal information on the internet with malicious intent).

Cancelling people who's opinions we don't like? Nope, never happened.

I may be lacking in intellectual rigour but honestly, what has JKR ever done to deserve “so many death threats she could wallpaper her house with them after trans activists foxed her (meaning they published her address and personal information on the internet with malicious intent”

That’s one of the things that happened to a friend, in her mid 30’s, Green Councillor. Her ‘crime’ - attending a feminist conference where she joined a workshop looking at self ID and women’s safe spaces. She left Facebook and Twitter after being threatened with being raped to death by my lady penis

No idea if anyone is doing that to JKR she does have her own production company and keeps quite a firm hand on what they do so I can't imagine she isn't able to create any 'art' at all. I don't think it is usual for authors to be involved in the publicity for films made from their material, in fact you rarely see the original author at all. So actually nothing new.