Nate O

One Woman, Two Protests, Zero Postcodes in Common: Tommy Robinson associate claims to be ‘concerned local resident’ Yesterday, former academic turned Reform UK cheerleader, Matt Goodwin tweeted a clip from the recent anti-migrant protest at the Barbican in London.  “Why are you...

“This is my local community. I’m worried about my children.”

That’s what a woman told GB News at the anti-migrant protest at the Barbican in London.

Problem is, she said the same thing at a protest in Epping days earlier. 🤦 ❌

hopenothate.org.uk/2025/08/05/o...

'Higgins, who is a member of the National Secular Society’s secular education forum, told Research Professional News that he “failed to understand” how the OfS could investigate and fine the University of Sussex £585,000 after a free speech investigation, but not investigate bible colleges.'

The idea that President can negotiate/dictate bilateral “deals” by using the full force of the federal government to punish and humiliate his perceived enemies goes against the whole idea of the rule of law. That should be the story, rather than normalizing this authoritarian behavior.

The Trump Administration Is Promoting Its Anti-Trans Agenda Globally at the United Nations U.S. delegates have objected to use of the word “gender” in U.N. documents during forums on topics as varied as women’s rights, science and technology, global health, toxic pollution and chemical wast...

NEW: US delegates have delivered anti-trans statements during UN forums on: women’s rights, science and technology, global health, pollution and more.

The delegates have at least twice urged the UN to adopt Trump's desired language on men and women.

By @lisalsong.bsky.social @propublica.org

Can't fault the clarity of Labour's message on protest. There are BAD protesters who must be punished (Irish musicians, anti-genocide vicars) and there are GOOD protesters whose views deserve respect (masked thugs with petrol bombs trying to start a pogrom)

Remembering back in 2018 the massive scandal of a secret yearly white supremacist conference run out of UCL that had numerous crank eugenicists and Toby Young attend, and now it’s unclear whether UCL or any other university can even conduct an investigation into it, much less condemn it

Mail column by Boris Johnson: The Channel migrants are shock troops recruited by Macron for his jihad against Brexit

Just the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom there, informing you that the President of France is engaged in with a Holy War against British sovereignty using black and brown people as ‘shock troops’.

Then you’re fine. There’s a night tube as well. Be ready to spend at least £7+ per drink

That whole area is a great spot for drinks, but beware most London establishments close before 11.30. Where are you planning on staying?

Find the light between a bog standard conservative influencer and the likes of Jean Raspail, James Mason and Nathan Bedford Forrest! Find me the light!

A group of people gathering outside of wes Streeting's office. A building with a red sign on the top saying "Wes streeting" on it.

People putting coffins onto the door of Wes Streeting's office.

We are now outside of Wes Streeting's office where a protest is now taking place.

He is the exemplar of separating the art from the artist. How can I enjoy the films of someone that is a reactionary, self-absorbed, insane idiot?

It’s incredible how good it is. I cried twice during that stupid film. I don’t know how Gunn did it

A bit out of the way from West End (three minutes) is Ronnie Scott’s for high class drinks and jazz, if you’re unaware. Might be a good place to unwind after a show.

Hrm… in West End/Soho/Covent Garden/Chinatown there should be plenty of options that do vegan. Can’t recommend any specifically, just narrow it down by cuisine and price range and there should be something good nearby

Pubs or restaurants? What type of food?

Thank you for clarifying!

In conclusion, I am still not a lawyer, but I did read through 196+ sections of this legislation and it’s still not clear to me whether legal but entirely unacceptable behaviour from professors is now protected by OfS, e.g. Holocaust denial, anti-vax conspiracy theories, etc.

hasn't everyone had that annoying professor who used their dumb made up examples to very clearly express how they felt about the world (and all too often, the female students in it)?

Oh, I know why

Reasonably practicable steps for providers and constituent institutions to take, in relation to research ethics committees, may include: ensuring that ethical review and requirements are focused on ethical issues and do not impose requirements related to the quality of the proposed research or reputational concerns; ensuring that ethics review committees have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom and to the risks to academic freedom of any decision; ensuring that the ethical review process is transparent; and closely monitoring the ethics review process for evidence of unnecessary suppression of research.

Did this new legislation simultaneously merk all UK ethics committees?

Research The following may be reasonably practicable steps for a provider or constituent institution to take in connection with research. ‘Research’ refers to any form of intellectual inquiry. Staff and students should be free to undertake academic research within the law. This freedom should not be restricted or compromised in any way because of a perceived or actual tension between: any conclusions that the research may reach or has reached or the viewpoint it supports, and the organisation’s policies or values. Nor should it be restricted or compromised in any way because of any external pressure connected with a. If funding bodies exert pressure on researchers to reach or to avoid particular results, amending or terminating these funding arrangements is likely to be a reasonably practicable step for providers and constituent institutions to take.

No mention of relevance to AOEs or disciplines. Did anybody think this through? Say a university hires someone to focus on maths but they spend all their research time on measuring skulls. What then?

There is one provision about relevance to education requirements, so no, but that's it

www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications...

Values relating to freedom of speech HERA requires providers and constituent institutions to set out, in their free speech codes of practice, their values relating to freedom of speech with an explanation of how those values uphold freedom of speech.49 Providers and constituent institutions are well placed to articulate their values relating to free speech and academic freedom. However, providers and constituent institutions may consider including the following: a statement about the overarching value of freedom of speech within the law for the organisation in question an explanation of how the provider’s or constituent institution’s values relating to freedom of speech uphold freedom of speech a statement emphasising the very high level of protection for the lawful expression of a viewpoint and for speech in an academic context a statement that freedom of speech within the law may include speech that is shocking, disturbing or offensive.

Universities compelled by the state to express how their values align with and will uphold the new legislation

It's actually more confusing now because they're all peppered with 'mays' and 'mights' and none of the examples have clear explanations.

Example 36: IT policy University A’s IT acceptable use policy says: ‘Users must not transmit offensive material using university internet facilities.’ Many lawfully expressible views are likely to be offensive to some. This includes contributions to academic debate. The policy may restrict essential functions of the university. Removing or amending it is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that A should now take. A’s policy is more likely to be compliant if instead of ‘offensive material’ it refers to material that is unlawful, including (for instance) under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, or Part 10 of the Online Safety Act 2023.

Is sending vore over uni comms protected by this legislation?

www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications...

Want to hear how this intrusion by the state into the affairs of universities would work when applied to other sectors--sorry, a company can't do any pinkwashing because a *possible* employee *might* have their speech 'suppressed' by the company's anodyne internal messaging during Pride Month?

Example 34: contracts requiring employees to uphold social justice College A’s employment contract states: ‘College employees must uphold the college’s commitment to social justice.’ Upholding social justice is not an essential function of the college. Depending on the particular facts of the case, this statement may suppress lawful expression of scepticism about some conceptions of social justice. If so, removing this contractual requirement is likely to be a reasonably practicable step that College A should now take.

Looks like 'At University X we're committed to making the world a better place' is out because some professors could possibly express legally permitted hatred, and the university saying they are committed to making the world a better place would somehow *suppress* said possible professor's views (?)