John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Gaun yersel' volver you're spot on.

volver

Yes, yes, of course, its me who is taking the opposite view to everybody on here.

Isn't it?

Nope!

Just this.......

Chewbacca Sun 19-Jun-22 22:04:11

So, to sum it up: AGD went to a university and spoke to some students about the holocaust and, during his talk, he ridiculed hitler. Some of the students were, by their own admission, the worse for drink. His talk was taken completely out of context and a whole different spin was put on it. The head of Students Union, Keir Bradwell, was affronted by their erroneous understanding of the lecture and his knee jerk reaction was to vow not only to bar AGD from speaking at Cambridge university again, but to also inform other universities to do the same. Some people on this thread have had the same knee jerk reaction. Would it be beneficial to the students, and the offended on this thread, to perhaps watch the video again and take great care to listen and understand what is actually being said, rather than being outraged and offended by their own misunderstanding and lack of critical thinking?

This.

To add,

"Mr Bradwell could not confirm how many complaints the union had received, but said: "It was the largest number in my time in Cambridge by an awfully long way."

He said the union now planned to "institutionalise firm definitions of racism", including anti-black racism and anti-Semitism.

"We will create a blacklist of speakers never to be invited back, and we will share it with other unions too. Andrew will be on that list," Mr Bradwell wrote to members.

"Mr Bradwell, who joked about the speech directly afterwards, has since apologised to members. While presiding over the debate, he said he was "quite drunk".

Of course, he doesn't think it affected his ability to preside over the debate, as he stated.

Alcohol can impede complex thought patterns - especially when you are 'quite drunk'. But obviously, this known scientific fact doesn't apply to him, or his critical-thinking ability.

I find it appalling that his subjective opinion gives him so much power.

I'm just astonished that the President of the Student Union of one of the top universities in the world can advocate such close-mindedness.

However, his judgement could have been impaired by alcohol so was it of any value whatsoever?

As a partial consequence of Mr Bradwell's high handedness, in instructing other universities to compile and add to their "blacklist" of speakers, he prompted the "new legal duties to protect freedom of speech at universities and colleges in England" reforms; thereby falling on his own petard.
Sober next time perhaps.

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.

Andrew Graham Dixon has said 'I apologise sincerely to anyone who found my debating tactics and use of Hitler's own language distressing; on reflection I can see that some of the words I used, even in quotation, are inherently offensive. It was not my intention to upset anybody, merely to persuade them that bad taste and bad morality often go hand in hand.'
So he evidently understands what happened.
The Union's Equalities Officer said that art historian Graham-Dixon's impression was 'absolutely unacceptable' and 'utterly horrifying.'
A former President of the Union tweeted that AGD's performance made him feel physically sick
Keir Bradwell has denied being drunk and said he had two glasses of wine as did the speaker.
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.

Personally I think drawing a parallel between bad taste and bad morality is in itself a questionable tactic. Are we to gather from that that bad morality is OK if it is combined with good taste?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

?

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.

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".

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.

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…..

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.

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?

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

"debating and free speech society"

?

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

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