John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Matt Lucas has said that some of the stuff he did in Little Britain was totally unacceptable and yet he along with others denied it when it was much was criticised and condemned at the time? I wonder what changed his mind..........hmmm.....

Glorianny

^Many people these days are afraid of falling foul of the trend of no-platforming, which has ruined the careers of many, as, it would appear, Bradwell had hoped to do to AG-D.^
Oh come on AGD has a flourishing website, god knows how many books and TV programmes and a series of tours. The possibility that one critical student could ruin his career is ludicrous.

It starts with one and snowballs very quickly, especially with the willingness of so many to be offended at the drop of a hat.
Many who condemned JKR had never read the accounts of her trauma at the hands of an abusive partner, nor read her tweets in any context but they 'knew' she was a bigoted transphobe, because 'everybody knows that'. People can easily be swept along on a tide created by a very few, not just students but older people whose life experience really ought to give them a touch more robust cynicism.

Chewbacca

Funny you should mention comedy being "offensive"volver; just this week Rowan Atkinson has said It’s “comedy’s job to offend” while criticising cancel culture.

The Blackadder, Mr Bean and Johnny English star, who returns to screens in new Netflix series Man vs Bee, shared his view on the subject, stating that comedians should be able to make jokes about “absolutely anything”.

Atkinson, 67, told the Irish Times: “It does seem to me that the job of comedy is to offend, or have the potential to offend, and it cannot be drained of that potential”

I'll stand aside whilst the perpetually offended remind me that no one is entitled to a platform for their individual liberty to express themselves.

Other comedians disagree with him. Matt Lucas has said that some of the stuff he did in Little Britain was totally unacceptable. www.nme.com/features/little-britain-blackface-offensive-bbc-2687165
Many others criticised it at the time.

Many people these days are afraid of falling foul of the trend of no-platforming, which has ruined the careers of many, as, it would appear, Bradwell had hoped to do to AG-D.
Oh come on AGD has a flourishing website, god knows how many books and TV programmes and a series of tours. The possibility that one critical student could ruin his career is ludicrous.

Funny you should mention comedy being "offensive"volver; just this week Rowan Atkinson has said It’s “comedy’s job to offend” while criticising cancel culture.

The Blackadder, Mr Bean and Johnny English star, who returns to screens in new Netflix series Man vs Bee, shared his view on the subject, stating that comedians should be able to make jokes about “absolutely anything”.

Atkinson, 67, told the Irish Times: “It does seem to me that the job of comedy is to offend, or have the potential to offend, and it cannot be drained of that potential”

I'll stand aside whilst the perpetually offended remind me that no one is entitled to a platform for their individual liberty to express themselves.

Chewbacca

Sorry, no can do Callistemon

The decision to ban Professor Selina Todd from an event she helped to organise has been reviewed as part of a “no platforming” investigation by Exeter College.

Professor Todd, who is an expert in the history of working-class women, contributed towards the organisation of the summit to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Ruskin College’s first Women’s Liberation Conference.

Todd gained the support of the university’s history facility to provide funding and facilitators for the event.

The academic was expected to speak at the event on Saturday, however, on the Friday she was informed that her invitation no longer stood.

*Due to her teaching of feminist history and involvement in the advocacy of women’s rights, the Professor has been accused of being a “transphobe".*

Perhaps there will soon be a list, circulated around universities and colleges, indicating not only which subjects / movements / issues are allowed to be discussed, but which wording, phraseology or language, or style, can or cannot be used to discuss such topics. And the academic or speaker will have his / her personal history, publications, pronouncements, etc thoroughly investigated prior to any invitation to ensure that only those who have adhered to the correct narrative are invited to speak.

So debates will be confined within parameters laid down by subjective opinion and taste. Controversial issues will be ignored. There will be no referencing of literature, editorials, publications, chronicles, that don't conform to this narrative by a speaker.

That's the only way to avoid offending. By censorship. No-platforming is censorship.

Its popping uop everywhere right now Doodledog Shall I post Stephen Fry's comments about being offended? Ach aye, why not, please don't be offended folks. ?

I was just going to post that, as it popped up on social media.

It's the obvious next step, however idiotic it may seem, if people insist on a right not to be offended.

Yes that's been happening for quite some time on Twitter.

The World's Going Mad, part II.

An audience member who was offended by a joke in Joe Lycett's live show called the police.

twitter.com/joelycett/status/1539273820770541569

"debating and free speech society"

?

the Union in question is not the Cambridge Students Union, which looks after the interests of students, but the Cambridge Union Society, the debating society.

Point taken, grumppa

Speakers like Peter Hitchens, who might be expected to sometimes make one gasp with astonishment, would at least invite heated debate.
I thought that was the idea - to make the audience use their brains, to think and produce reasoned arguments against ideas they dislike and to listen to the answers!

Sadly, it seems no, that all they want is speakers with whom they can sit nodding and agree.

I find that actually that quite offensive - that students at one of the most elite universities in the world will shut their ears to controversial thoughts and not bother to counter the views of those with whom they disagree.
Are they sheep?
Do they need others to decide for them what they should hear?

While this does not in itself affect the serious points being made, it is important to be clear that the Union in question is not the Cambridge Students Union, which looks after the interests of students, but the Cambridge Union Society, the debating society. It is not the equivalent of student unions in other universities. It is, to quote its own website, a "debating and free speech society".

Not sure about the free speech bit.

Callistemon21

Chewbacca

There is no evidence of no-platforming

Wrong. Again.

Amber Rudd
JK Rowling
Peter Tatchell
Germaine Greer
Andrew Graham-Dixon
Peter Hitchens
Alice Weidel
Jeff McMahan
Peter Singer
Dame Jenny Murray
Professor Selina Todd
Julie Bindell
David Gale
Carl Benjamin
Yaron Brook
Nick Lowles
Maryam Namazie

What closed minds they must have!

And there we have it. Chewbacca’ s list of the no platformed has another woman added, professor Selena Todd an academic who is an expert in the history of working class women. She’s accused of being transphobic.

In case we forget, here’s Chewbacca’[s list. There’s Peter Hitchen, unless we are accused of being loony lefties. Oh I forgot, we are now accused of being right wing, evangelical bigots…..

It seems everyone including the speaker recognises that it was a mistake and offensive, apart of course from some people on GN who seem to think they know better than anyone else, including the speaker and those present at the debate.

Do you know differently, Glorianny? Or are you amongst those who just think they know better?

There is a difference between acknowledging that someone has been offended, causing offence and being offensive.

Acknowledging that someone has been offended is simply that. Many people these days are afraid of falling foul of the trend of no-platforming, which has ruined the careers of many, as, it would appear, Bradwell had hoped to do to AG-D. I'm sure that many people will have apologised for things they haven't done, having seen what has happened to people like JKR and Kathleen Stock, or Selina Todd, as Chewbacca outlines above.

Causing offence can be easy to do, particularly when dealing with people one hasn't met. We all know those who take offence at the slightest thing, and may ourselves take offence at things that would pass unnoticed to others.

Being offensive, OTOH, is subjective. Something is not, in and of itself, offensive, and whether someone's words are offensive depends entirely on context. If I said that I had read in a newspaper that Gransnetters were a bunch of ill-informed, foolish old women who would be better advised to stay offline and concentrate on knitting and making jam, I would not be being offensive (to most people, at least), particularly if I went on to qualify those words with a contradictory opinion of my own. If I said that Gransnetters are a bunch of ill-informed foolish old women who would be better advised to stay offline and concentrate on knitting and making jam, and presented the words as my own opinion, then I wouldn't be surprised if many Gransnetters thought I was being offensive.

Sorry, no can do Callistemon

The decision to ban Professor Selina Todd from an event she helped to organise has been reviewed as part of a “no platforming” investigation by Exeter College.

Professor Todd, who is an expert in the history of working-class women, contributed towards the organisation of the summit to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Ruskin College’s first Women’s Liberation Conference.

Todd gained the support of the university’s history facility to provide funding and facilitators for the event.

The academic was expected to speak at the event on Saturday, however, on the Friday she was informed that her invitation no longer stood.

Due to her teaching of feminist history and involvement in the advocacy of women’s rights, the Professor has been accused of being a “transphobe".

Exactly Dickens the principle remains. The principle of being allowed to debate an issue in a style that some will be offended by.

This is what's being debated here Glorianny.

Professor Selina Todd - a Professor at Oxford!
Please tell me that cannot be true

?

Chewbacca

^There is no evidence of no-platforming^

Wrong. Again.

Amber Rudd
JK Rowling
Peter Tatchell
Germaine Greer
Andrew Graham-Dixon
Peter Hitchens
Alice Weidel
Jeff McMahan
Peter Singer
Dame Jenny Murray
Professor Selina Todd
Julie Bindell
David Gale
Carl Benjamin
Yaron Brook
Nick Lowles
Maryam Namazie

What closed minds they must have!

There is no evidence of no-platforming

Wrong. Again.

Amber Rudd
JK Rowling
Peter Tatchell
Germaine Greer
Andrew Graham-Dixon
Peter Hitchens
Alice Weidel
Jeff McMahan
Peter Singer
Dame Jenny Murray
Professor Selina Todd
Julie Bindell
David Gale
Carl Benjamin
Yaron Brook
Nick Lowles
Maryam Namazie

Glorianny

Except there isn't a list.
It was something a young man spoke about in Nov 2021. is term of office has finished and there is no evidence of a blacklist.
It might be best to drop this as a case to argue about. The speaker has apologised, the president has gone. There is no evidence of no-platforming . If you consider his words offensive or not depends on your personal boundaries. Obviously some students who were there were offended and AGD recognised this.

Yes, all 'done and dusted'.

But the principle still remains. The principle of being allowed to debate an issue in a style that some will be offended by.

Except there isn't a list.
It was something a young man spoke about in Nov 2021. is term of office has finished and there is no evidence of a blacklist.
It might be best to drop this as a case to argue about. The speaker has apologised, the president has gone. There is no evidence of no-platforming . If you consider his words offensive or not depends on your personal boundaries. Obviously some students who were there were offended and AGD recognised this.

AGD also said:
Speaking to the BBC, about his blacklisting, he added: “Mr Bradwell’s implication that I am a racist and anti-Semitic by placing me on his list is utterly rejected and in the context, surprising.

“The speech I gave was a strident attack on Hitler’s racism and anti-Semitism.”

Mr Bradwell's words:

The society president, whose term ends in December, said he would still recommend to his successor "that Andrew Graham-Dixon ought not be re-invited back".

He added: "Our speakers may say what they wish in our chamber, and absolutely never need to fear that anything they say will put them on a list of any sort."

Except the list that means you must never be invited back, presumably. What a guddle.

Smileless2012

Bradwell was drunk I thought it was just some of the students.

I'm astonished that this idiot man remains as President of the Student Union, still it looks as if some good came out of the debacle Chewbacca.

This is an old event. He completed his year as president. The president now is one Leti Ryder. As i said earlier there can be few long term effects from anyPresident it is an annual election cus.org/members/running-your-union/whos-who