Matt Goodwin

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.

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.

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)

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 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.

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 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.

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! 🍔 🍟

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

No, there isn’t!

You’re welcome.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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/

What a brilliant post, Doodledog!

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.”

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

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.

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'.

Each to their won but I don't see it being a best seller and does not appeal to me judging from the book's intro as Twaddle helpfully set out for us:

"It is a story of how a people are losing their own country. Mass uncontrolled immigration, porous borders, 'two-tier multiculturalism', and a draconian regime of censorship are all contributing to not just the transformation of a country and a people but their very replacement".

What twaddle. England/UK is not 'being lost" - you cant just "loose a country" and its not something I observe or experience. Goodwin can of course only speak from his own perspective and that of his party Reform and its not one I share. Some may share his views but the majority evidently do not as Reform has so few MPs. Goodwin's views and values were also tested and failed very recently, in the Gorton and Denton by election, shown to be in the minority and he was outvoted fairly emphatically by the winning Green candidate on her platform of inclusivity. The forward of his book is not a claim to inclusivity in any shape or form.- so off putting for me personally. Factually the UK does not have "uncontrolled immigration'. Immigration data fell significantly over the past year and is heading towards net zero. Goodwin refers to "two tier multiculturalism" but I'm sure he is not referring to structural inequalities, disparities in wealth, housing or senior leadership that persists for minority groups as that view does not align with Reform's pledges to eliminate DEI initiatives or Gorton's recent efforts to win voters in Gorton and Denton. He thus must mean something entirely different. The UK does not have a 'draconian censorship regime' so he is factually incorrect and being knowingly provocative which puts me off reading his book. The UK clearly has laws to protect free speech.

It continues:

"Drawing on a huge amount of data, rigorous analysis, and demographic forecasts, Suicide of a Nation pulls back the curtain to show readers how their population, how their country, is now being completely transformed -and in ways they never voted for, nor ever asked for".

Last time I looked the UK has democratic elections. We had 13 years of Conservative rule and now are part way through a Labour government. Each party had its own manifesto so Voters more or less knew what they were voting for, notwithstanding not all promises would be met, economic realties lead to U turns etc. Reform would face the same global realities and economic constraints. A book seemingly whipping up populist emotion has no appeal to me. Reform managed just a handful of MPs in the last General Election so this book in reality may appeal more to those voters. Voters do understand that Farage rates Trump and mirrors much of Trump's ideology therefore we have some vague idea of what his government and policies might look like. So far knowing what we do, Reform has never won a General Election and long might that be the case.

It continues:

"Through an unflinching look at reality, a reality the politicians would rather you ignore, Suicide of a Nation asks and then answers a series of uncomfortable but urgent questions".

We are all able on a daily basis to observe and experience the reality of living under current government and observing the actions and statements of all parties and we ask uncomfortable and urgent questions on Gransnet posts- we don't need to read Matt Goodwin's book to have an unflinching ring side seat on reality. Politicians, of all parties, may rather we ignore things but they are astute enough not to underestimate the voting population and know very well they depend on us for their votes and that they are accountable.

It goes on:

"What is happening to Britain, and why? On current demographic trends, where will the country be at the end of the century, only 74 years from now? Why are millions of people, including their wishes, concerns, and worries, being ignored? Why has the country's political and cultural elite become so utterly disconnected from the rest of the country? What might happen if none of this is addressed? And what must change before it is too late?"

We all get our democratic vote so not ignored as such. If we feel a party is ignoring the needs of the voters they get voted out at the next election. We can all see what is happening to the UK, post Brexit decline in growth, loss of free market, isolation and loss of decision making power in EU decisions, anti-immigrant rhetoric, adverse economic conditions in a chaotic world (Trump's tariffs, increasing oil prices etc). We observe sequential leaders and sequential governments grappling with these conditions and restraints. Arguably Farage was the key architect that lead to Brexit on his rallying call for 'sovereignty'. He took many for fools as the UK had sovereignty even before Brexit.

A book by someone who can't win an election as an MP that does not believe in inclusivity and building communities is not for me....