Matt Goodwin

I don't think anything should go, but I certainly wouldn't trust those who tend to make decisions around speech, I have watched the last decade and the damage it has caused to women, I wouldn't really trust them to organise the proverbial in a brewery let alone these type of nuanced decisions. I think people tend to defend the speech they agree with, so many would think LC should be jailed, and not Ricky Jones, and vice versa. They would think those who put 'incorrect information' about the Southport attacks should be prosecuted but not hope not hate. It depends on the prevailing view in those who hold 'power'.

Galaxy

There have been 5 thousand cases dealt with by the free speech union, sorry but what happened to women in particular was closing down, it was deeply disturbing. There is an authoritarian tendency to the progressives.

I agree with you on that. I don't believe I have said otherwise. The trouble is that I don't think it is possible for anyone to be neutral, and if they were, they shouldn't be sitting in judgement over humans, who are fallible and nuanced beings.

We can't have a society where people have the same rights to incite racial violence as they do to incite disapproval of, say, smoking indoors (or any number of other things). Someone somewhere has to be partisan and say that it's ok to do one and not the other.

You and I happen to agree on the way the language was mangled when it came to trans rights versus women's rights - it was one of the more terrifying aspects of a deeply disturbing period, for all sorts of reasons. I don't see those who insisted on the language excluding women as 'progressives' though. But maybe that's my lack of neutrality showing?

IMO, making inciting racial violence illegal is not a case of progressives being authoritarian either. Sentences are often more draconian in extremis. Someone posting that people should burn down hostels is far more serious when the streets are filled with rioters than on a normal Tuesday, as it is far more likely that their words will lead to the violence they are inciting.

I don't think it's possible to have a moral high ground of 'neutrality' where nothing is sanctioned and anything goes. What is considered 'progressive' is a matter of opinion, and is not neutral either.

Thanks Jane43.
I don't understand the last one.

Meandrogrog

I couldnt care less about others frowning on my opinions. I probably would frown on theirs! My query is, what is breaking the law? What am I allowed and not allowed to say? Inciting violence is obvious but what else does breaking the law involve? In other words, what precisely can I not say. Its all a bit reminiscent of 1984 (the book)

These are the exceptions to Free Speech legislation:

“Key Free Speech Exceptions & Limitations
Hate Speech and Harassment: It is illegal to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words intended to harass, alarm, or cause distress. This includes expressing hatred based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
Public Order Offences: Laws under the Public Order Act 1986 ban behavior that causes "harassment, alarm or distress," including inciting racial or religious hatred.
Terrorism and Incitement: Encouraging terrorism, inviting support for a proscribed organization, or inciting violence is criminal.
Online and Communication Offences: The Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Communications Act 2003 (Section 127) prohibit sending indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening messages.
Defamation: Civil action can be taken if a statement harms a person’s reputation.
Confidentiality: Preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence.”

What a brilliant post, Doodledog!

Read this about why Leicester's population is so diverse and has been developing as such since 1700s.

Irish, Italian, Jewish, Belgian, Basque, Antigua, Barbuda, Jamaica, India, Uganda, Somalia, Eritrea.

storyofleicester.info/city-stories/a-city-of-diversity/

Galaxy

There have been 5 thousand cases dealt with by the free speech union, sorry but what happened to women in particular was closing down, it was deeply disturbing. There is an authoritarian tendency to the progressives.

What do you mean by "dealt with"? What was the outcome?

The reasons there is a large non white population in Leicester are no doubt complex. But the gist is that the first generation were invited here after the UK colonised their countries.

There have been 5 thousand cases dealt with by the free speech union, sorry but what happened to women in particular was closing down, it was deeply disturbing. There is an authoritarian tendency to the progressives.

Galaxy

They are in national strategies though, the government have just announced a strategy that includes addressing the issue of English speaking, they have just I think debated the non hate crime nonsense in relation to speech.

I didn't say they weren't . I said they should not drive national policy, and I don't believe they should.

Hate speech is rather different, I think. For laws to be just we all have to know where the line is, so we know if we are crossing it. That does need a national approach. My point about that was that saying something to thousands of followers during a race riot is not the same as speaking out in 'normal' circumstances. People are not being 'closed down' at all.

Top post Doodledog. I’m glad those are being addressed for the people concerned Galaxy, but it doesn’t change the general points.

My DGC by chance are in an area and school where there are not non English speakers: OTOH my sister in London, Hackney, was taking small groups in a primary school 20 years ago, I think she counted 15 languages. Children pick language up very quickly on the whole, it’s adults who need more help.

They are in national strategies though, the government have just announced a strategy that includes addressing the issue of English speaking, they have just I think debated the non hate crime nonsense in relation to speech.

twaddle

I didn't write that it's not a concern, but I refuse to accept that it's the main cause of the problems being experienced in today's schools.

Like just about every other issue, immigrants have become scapegoats.

I agree. This is how discontent is spread. Someone describes a situation as a 'problem', based on something that is true for a small number of people in particular areas. It is not a widespread issue, but it is presented as such.

Someone else then points out that it is not a nationwide problem, and is told that they are denying that it is a problem at all, and that they are divorced from reality.

If they then point out that no, they accept that in certain limited cases the problem exists, that is taken to mean that there is, in fact, a widespread issue with whatever it is.

There are many examples, but on this thread the issue is teaching non-English-speaking children in mainstream schools to the detriment of those who are fluent. On another it might be too many people not integrating because they can't speak English. Or a few people being jailed for inciting others to commit violent crime during a riot being seen as 'being closed down on free speech'.

In all cases specific incidents in defined areas in particular circumstances are extrapolated as though they apply across the board. If that were true, and people were being jailed for having political discussions in the village pub (or posting on GN for that matter), or GCSE and A level grades were plummeting because children's education had suffered, then yes, those things would be national problems.

As it is, they are very real for the people involved, but as with badly sited traffic lights, or coastal erosion, or an inability to get wifi signal etc they are local issues. They do need to be addressed, but they are not the sort of thing that should drive national policy, and saying that is not denying that the issues are there. It tends to be when immigration is involved that most people want other people's local issues to seen as national problems.

People feeling overlooked is a far deeper issue. The country has been promised 'levelling up' for ages now, and it never happens. I would love to see a rule that all policies have to show evidence of research into how they impact on different areas and across different demographic groups before they can take effect.

What is hate speech?
Are you concerned about 'flying too close to the wind' in what you say or print?
If you are worried about being 'closed down' then one simple google search will either re-assure you or confirm your suspicions.
At the moment, in law, and in our domain, there are five named categories.

LizzieDrip

^Is there national decline rooted in immigration and demographic change? Thoughts anyone?^

No, there isn’t!

You’re welcome.

I am not sure and how can you be! You are welcome!

Is there national decline rooted in immigration and demographic change? Thoughts anyone?

No, there isn’t!

You’re welcome.

Primrose I'd plan a lesson around nutrition, food sciences, hygiene, obesity, cost of materials v profit, and corporate uniforms!
That should turn them off the golden arches for a while! 🍔 🍟

I was in Leicester recently. Driving through a residential area I know very well the roads were literally packed with teenagers in school uniform heading to McDonalds. I nipped in for a snack and I was honestly the only white person in there and it was absolutely rammed.

I lived in Leics for 16 years so I am well aware it is the most multi cultural city in the country but it shocked me. I felt like the outsider. The kids looked like a mix of Somali, West Indian, Pakistani, other African countries and Libyan. Imagine trying to plan for and teach such a wide range of nationalities.

Chocolatelovinggran

What has happened in this example, MartavTaurus, is that, as the school is under threat, local day pupils are seeking places in state schools nearby.
It is a little galling to hear these parents online being very critical of these establishments, declaring them to be places where "dumbing down" is the norm, whilst expecting a seat to be awaiting their child when required.

That's not a good look, Chocolatelovinggran. Surely those paying parents realise that state schools can't possibly provide the same small class sizes, the same facilities, even the same discipline? That's not to say state schools aren't doing their best, I think they'll have a lot of pluses.

Usually it's only a few entitled parents in a private school who get critical of everything and anything. While they're at a private school, the best way is to politely show them the door, but obviously that doesn't apply here!!

I agree there are many grey areas and it's good that we are free to discuss the pros and cons of those areas of doubt. I've only seen second hand footage of the Palestine marches and agree some of it was offensive. I feel the same about Tommy Robinson's march last Summer. The fact is that both were allowed to go ahead precisely because we are quite lenient about out interpretation of free speech. I really don't agree that there is draconian censorship in the UK. Inconsistent at times, but not draconian.

Who decides who should be shut down? That is the issue. Five minutes ago the 'progressive' geniuses were deciding that women pointing out safeguarding risks was unacceptable speech. We have to cope with speech we consider offensive, I think the behaviour on the palestine marches was offensive and has led to considerable division but I would say they shouldn't be stopped expressing their views. I have many concerns about the hate speech laws, and am delighted that some of the legislation on non hate laws are being looked at.

I couldnt care less about others frowning on my opinions. I probably would frown on theirs! My query is, what is breaking the law? What am I allowed and not allowed to say? Inciting violence is obvious but what else does breaking the law involve? In other words, what precisely can I not say. Its all a bit reminiscent of 1984 (the book)

Meandrogrog

twaddle

Meandrogrog

Casdon

I don’t think it is ‘Labour approval’ that is the issue here Meandrogrog, it’s that a number of other Gransnetters on this thread don’t agree with what Lucy Connolly said. Other posters are not an amorphous mass of Labour voters who all think and say the same thing?

I dont agree with what she said either, it was awful. I think my point is more, what is safe to say anymore and the feeling is that we are being closed down and just have to accept what is happening or suffer the consequences.

I don't understand your problem here. You claim that you don't agree with what she wrote, so it must be obvious to you that inciting violence isn't a "safe" thing to do in public. I, for one, am very glad that I live in a society which "closes down" on people who call for other people to be attacked. Yes, we do have to accept the consequences of the law if we want to live in a reasonably civilised society.

It is not calling for other people to be attacked that I am meaning, it is feeling closed down on free speech.

So what are you meaning? Lucy Connolly called for people to be attacked and admitted it. She declared herself guilty.

People in the UK are allowed free speech unless it breaks the law. People might feel that others will frown on what their opinions, but that's their problem. Free speech comes with responsibility and people need to be able to justify their opinions.

What has happened in this example, MartavTaurus, is that, as the school is under threat, local day pupils are seeking places in state schools nearby.
It is a little galling to hear these parents online being very critical of these establishments, declaring them to be places where "dumbing down" is the norm, whilst expecting a seat to be awaiting their child when required.

twaddle

Meandrogrog

Casdon

I don’t think it is ‘Labour approval’ that is the issue here Meandrogrog, it’s that a number of other Gransnetters on this thread don’t agree with what Lucy Connolly said. Other posters are not an amorphous mass of Labour voters who all think and say the same thing?

I dont agree with what she said either, it was awful. I think my point is more, what is safe to say anymore and the feeling is that we are being closed down and just have to accept what is happening or suffer the consequences.

I don't understand your problem here. You claim that you don't agree with what she wrote, so it must be obvious to you that inciting violence isn't a "safe" thing to do in public. I, for one, am very glad that I live in a society which "closes down" on people who call for other people to be attacked. Yes, we do have to accept the consequences of the law if we want to live in a reasonably civilised society.

It is not calling for other people to be attacked that I am meaning, it is feeling closed down on free speech.