Or there’s the other one the FSU told me about. A 14-year-old boy was identified as being a threat because of a painting he did in his art lesson. It was a portrait of Nigel Farage. Later he asked a teacher if she liked his work and what she thought of illegal asylum seekers pouring into the country. He became, immediately, a “safeguarding concern”, and when his dad complained to the school he was told — in a lengthy essay, which I have seen — to basically sling his hook. The essay cited the Equality Act 2010 to suggest that the boy’s apparent liking for Nigel Farage and disaffection with the level of immigration “could potentially highlight discrimination against personal attributes that are legally protected”. In other words, in this case, as in the two above, individuals were persecuted and identified as safeguarding concerns because they shared the views of the majority of the population.
It’s just not called censorship. Yet you end up on a register anyway, barred from many a job.
I suppose it’s all about who sits on these boards. What kind of person thinks to themselves one evening: hell, I’ve got time to spare. Do you know what I’d really like to do? Sit on a safeguarding board and stop people getting jobs if they don’t agree with my political views.
Call me a cryptofascist but I think just one kind of person makes that kind of decision, and they are probably not the easy-going, amiable, centrist coves you might wish were entrusted with such responsibilities. They are people who are motivated by the single idea that their views are right and inviolable and anyone who transgresses them deserves all they get
One of those things I keep saying. As soon as there is such a cefntre of power in a society then those who desire power over others will vie to conquer that centre. So whatever the initial aims, however pure the set up, it will always be colonised by the same vile little shits.
not the easy-going, amiable, centrist coves you might wish were entrusted with such responsibilities.
Actually these are often just the people who have those kinds of petty and narrow minded views.
They are the ones that lapped all this Marxist nonsense up at their second division University and can’t understand why other people don’t think the same way.
Wouldn’t that make them ex-easy-going, amiable, centrist coves, i.e. the “vile little shits” described supra?
“centrist” *and* Marxist? Not in *my* dictionary.
Unfortunately not.
When I did my degree in the 1980s Marxist economic and social theory was quite mainstream. Nothing extreme about it.
It actually became ‘old hat’ as Gramsci was rediscovered and the academics moved onto Foucault and Althusser.
Any government that uses its influence over the judiciary to obtain a ruling that anyone commiting an ilegal act of entering the country without premission, having been encouraged by said judiciary to destroy any ID they have to avoid identification, has more rights that the indigenous population has to have censorship to maintain order without laws it doesn’t like.
Ottokring, it’s probably more rife in first division universities than in second or third, and is more a function of the ‘subject’ than anything else. I don’t imagine (and I don’t need much imagination in this case) that students doing Civil Engineering have much time for any political creed.
Subjects dealing with things tend to make people more conservative, because things don’t care what you think and have no chance of changing their (nonexistent) minds.
A bridge doesn’t stay up, the computer program doesn’t work correctly, because you talk nicely about it and use the correct words. No, AI doesn’t do that either.
Subjects dealing with people may make people more socialist because they tend to be all about how you can try to change people’s minds. Or at least deceive them into putting you in charge.
@M Strongly disagree – the people who want to change people’s minds from recognising reality are socialists who choose subjects dealing with people in order to further their ends. Youngsters who want to earn a living choose practical subjects, those who want to control people do an MBA or PPE or journalism.
So you’re saying people choose subjects based on their initial tendencies, while I said the subjects chosen change peoples’ tendencies over time.
I think we’re both correct. Though you’re more right in that adults don’t often drastically change their inner beliefs.
It’s the thing of feedback loops. If vet school is shit, Rover dies. If engineering is shit, bridges fall down.
If you made up some bollocks teaching Elizabethan history, what’s the worst that happens?
We pay a £trillion in damages to Jamaica?
Yes. In Jamaican dollars. MMT. We print ’em up, dump ’em on the tarmac, and withdraw. Then laugh at the consequences.
That’s the sort of people who do it, and who voters should not vote for (but they don’t pay sufficient attention).
What I mean is someone ends up writing a book about Elizabethan history based on their course and it’s bollocks, so fucking what? Really, little history before the industrial revolution has any bearing on modern life.
You’d be surprised with how wrong you are. When you deal with many Yanks you’re dealing with people who are the product of the !7th & 18th centuries & haven’t changed that much in their thinking. Ever noticed the similarity of Woke with Puritanism? That much of the Right is God ridden. If you want to understand Yanks understand their history. It’s our history
The particular fetishes of fascists change from place to place, but they are driven by incentives. Like the same sort of plain looking women make up woke feminism and the Festival of Light. They’ll say it’s about God or protecting women but it’s really about not wanting men looking at other women.
If the incentives are out of line, they will change over a period of 400 years.
Indeed
The feedback loop on the Spey bridge which fell down after 139 years won’t have much impact on the builder
Historians have a huge debate over whether it’s bollocks or not, many papers get funded and published and many careers get established based on the positions they take?
Oh, the worst? I suppose the bollocks gets thoroughly disproven and your name is mud among historians. Generally after you’re dead.
So the prosperous stop speaking up, and the decadence continues unabated.
Anyone who is looking for power should be the last person to get it. They are all so full of themselves that they are always right.
I’m a kill them all and let God sort it out kind of guy. That is why I would never attempt to go into politics. Too many deaths would be the result as all our communist friends would take flying lessons.
Cue CS Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
But it’s not for the benefit of the victims. All across the United Kingdom, women and girls are being attacked and sexually assaulted, mainly by brown men the government allowed to move here recently.
So the British government has declared war on little white boys:
Boys to be target of UK’s violence against women strategy
What part of “they want you broken and dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny” was unclear?
It’s all about who the busybody thinks are the victims. In this case, it’s the poor brown Muslims, regardless of reality (as usual).
The longer quote gets the point across a lot better:
I can’t remember who said it, nor the exact wording, but it goes something like this (only more fluently):
The easiest way to get people to volunteer to do something is to promise them they will be put in a position where they can control others (or perhaps it was that they could be cruel to others).
Rod is the Arthur Harris of columnists, when he’s over the target it’s getting obliterated:
Jess Phillips is the safeguarding minister, incidentally. We never really had one before her. She has the difficult job of balancing the safeguarding of those girls who were gang-raped by almost exclusively Muslim men in towns the length and breadth of our country, with the safeguarding of Labour seats dependent upon Muslim votes (which include her own). It is a nuanced thing, this safeguarding, then. She has to safeguard the girls but also safeguard the “protected characteristics” (a tendency to rape young white girls, I think) of the perpetrators
Bullseye.
And will fail to do both of those things. Zero seats!
You don’t have censorship and the government will arrest anyone who says otherwise.
Doublethink