FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rule Britannia banned Aberdeen Uni
Rule Britannia banned Aberdeen Uni
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html" if only we could ban from the forum all thosewho came out with unthinking jingoistic tosh, level of debate would rise dramaticly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html" Are you ‘Anti woke’ Chris? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too?" Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable?" Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion?" It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too?" So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate " As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok?" Yet without knowing. It's fine to condemn a university, and to make ridiculous claims like "rule Britannia banned"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion?" i'm going on what the op posted, did he get something wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok?" I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case." What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? Yet without knowing. It's fine to condemn a university, and to make ridiculous claims like "rule Britannia banned"?" I haven't condemned them. I've stated if those who support freedom of expression, actually only do so when it suits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? " You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false." Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing" It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. " This so called story has triggered the daily mail who are now acting like snowflakes ,  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context " Ok. I'll accept your view of the context. The fact remains that they didn't find that she said anything racially motivated so why is she banned? As I've said already, I'm questioning her right to freedom of expression | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. " So as I said. Chris isn't allowed to post a newspaper article because some don't like him. I still haven't seen anyone counter the claims, just ridicule because it was Chris who posted it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context " last I checkd, universities are not military institutions, so the comment about a british uni seems a bit moot  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context Ok. I'll accept your view of the context. The fact remains that they didn't find that she said anything racially motivated so why is she banned? As I've said already, I'm questioning her right to freedom of expression " We don't know yet. So there are two options. 1. Wait until the university release a statement. 2. Believe the daily mail without question. And accuse people of being "woke". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. So as I said. Chris isn't allowed to post a newspaper article because some don't like him. I still haven't seen anyone counter the claims, just ridicule because it was Chris who posted it." Are we not allowed to critique at all? The claims made by the OP are ridiculous, and are based on the Daily Mail story which is based on a half truth at best. There's nothing to counter yet because we don't know what happened. The only thing we know is, the daily mail is outraged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate " Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech." My point exactly. Whilst 3/4 days ago the same people were staunch defenders  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech." where do you get "illegal" from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. My point exactly. Whilst 3/4 days ago the same people were staunch defenders "I think you guys are missing the point. No one is not defending free speech. We're just saying that so far, the only thing we know, is that the daily mail is outraged by a half story. If we all freaked out based on half a story from the daily mail, everytime they printed something like this, we'd all lose our minds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. My point exactly. Whilst 3/4 days ago the same people were staunch defenders
I think you guys are missing the point. No one is not defending free speech. We're just saying that so far, the only thing we know, is that the daily mail is outraged by a half story.
If we all freaked out based on half a story from the daily mail, everytime they printed something like this, we'd all lose our minds. "Is that the royal we? are you speaking for everyone now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech." Who said it was illegal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. My point exactly. Whilst 3/4 days ago the same people were staunch defenders
I think you guys are missing the point. No one is not defending free speech. We're just saying that so far, the only thing we know, is that the daily mail is outraged by a half story.
If we all freaked out based on half a story from the daily mail, everytime they printed something like this, we'd all lose our minds. Is that the royal we? are you speaking for everyone now?"The first "we" was the people being attacked for pointing out that so far, this is a non story until we know the facts. The second "we" was the entire country. IE, can you imagine if we all freaked out everytime the Daily Mail printed one of their outrage stories. IE this was a light hearted comment. Any other "we"s I missed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. Who said it was illegal? " ok wrong word but the union seems to have a problem with it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. Who said it was illegal? ok wrong word but the union seems to have a problem with it. "and as they areelected by the students, where is the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. Who said it was illegal? ok wrong word but the union seems to have a problem with it.
and as they areelected by the students, where is the issue?"We can run with theme if you wish. As the government are elected by citizens, what's the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. Who said it was illegal? ok wrong word but the union seems to have a problem with it. "And so do the Daily Mail, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. Who said it was illegal? ok wrong word but the union seems to have a problem with it.
and as they areelected by the students, where is the issue?
We can run with theme if you wish. As the government are elected by citizens, what's the issue?"but heres the rub, in various other threads it's been established that (I believe) an elected body can run roughshod over the rights of a citizen, and this thread, well the daily fail, thinks thats what is happening? So where is the boundary between government power and citizens rights? oh and in the uk you are a subject, not a citizen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. Who said it was illegal? ok wrong word but the union seems to have a problem with it.
and as they areelected by the students, where is the issue?
We can run with theme if you wish. As the government are elected by citizens, what's the issue?
but heres the rub, in various other threads it's been established that (I believe) an elected body can run roughshod over the rights of a citizen, and this thread, well the daily fail, thinks thats what is happening?
So where is the boundary between government power and citizens rights?
oh and in the uk you are a subject, not a citizen "You don't seem to have an issue with this elected body making a judgement. You've had plenty of issue with another elected body making a judgement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. Who said it was illegal? ok wrong word but the union seems to have a problem with it.
and as they areelected by the students, where is the issue?
We can run with theme if you wish. As the government are elected by citizens, what's the issue?
but heres the rub, in various other threads it's been established that (I believe) an elected body can run roughshod over the rights of a citizen, and this thread, well the daily fail, thinks thats what is happening?
So where is the boundary between government power and citizens rights?
oh and in the uk you are a subject, not a citizen
You don't seem to have an issue with this elected body making a judgement.
You've had plenty of issue with another elected body making a judgement "based on the limited info we have, this looks like a clear attempt at deliberately angering/trolling a university group | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. So as I said. Chris isn't allowed to post a newspaper article because some don't like him. I still haven't seen anyone counter the claims, just ridicule because it was Chris who posted it. Are we not allowed to critique at all? The claims made by the OP are ridiculous, and are based on the Daily Mail story which is based on a half truth at best. There's nothing to counter yet because we don't know what happened. The only thing we know is, the daily mail is outraged. " Uh? All I've said is that Rule Britannic at Aberdeen University is banned. If you use that phrase at Aberdeen University, it appears you will be banned, de facto the phrase is banned? Putting aside your own prejudices, which part of that isn't true? And do you think Aberdeen is right to limit freedom of speech in this way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. So as I said. Chris isn't allowed to post a newspaper article because some don't like him. I still haven't seen anyone counter the claims, just ridicule because it was Chris who posted it. Are we not allowed to critique at all? The claims made by the OP are ridiculous, and are based on the Daily Mail story which is based on a half truth at best. There's nothing to counter yet because we don't know what happened. The only thing we know is, the daily mail is outraged. Uh? All I've said is that Rule Britannic at Aberdeen University is banned. If you use that phrase at Aberdeen University, it appears you will be banned, de facto the phrase is banned? Putting aside your own prejudices, which part of that isn't true? And do you think Aberdeen is right to limit freedom of speech in this way? " As we don't know what happened yet, how can anyone say something is true or not. I think this is the crux of the issue, people are so ready to be outraged at the slightest hint of something like this, they jump to ridiculous conclusions, as above. I don't see that me commenting on your speculation of what the Daily Mail is speculating about the university of Aberdeen may or may not have done as being very useful. So I won't answer that question. Just for clarity, what are my "prejudices"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Are you ‘Anti woke’ Chris? " the synonym of woke is ashleep ... care of urban dictionary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false. Okay so, let's just put it out there. Regarding the OP. He clearly creates two characters/personas and posts up these things for a laugh. One is the pro brexit Alan partridge kind of character. Which I like. The lobster eating, confused about brexit guy. And this "anti-woke" character, which is sinister and not funny at all. Personally I don't think it's funny to try to ridicule people for standing up to racism and be bigotry. Now as for this thread. This is a non story until we know what's happened. The only talking point is the OPs Alf Garnet persona, believing the daily mail outrage. So as I said. Chris isn't allowed to post a newspaper article because some don't like him. I still haven't seen anyone counter the claims, just ridicule because it was Chris who posted it. Are we not allowed to critique at all? The claims made by the OP are ridiculous, and are based on the Daily Mail story which is based on a half truth at best. There's nothing to counter yet because we don't know what happened. The only thing we know is, the daily mail is outraged. Uh? All I've said is that Rule Britannic at Aberdeen University is banned. If you use that phrase at Aberdeen University, it appears you will be banned, de facto the phrase is banned? Putting aside your own prejudices, which part of that isn't true? And do you think Aberdeen is right to limit freedom of speech in this way? " It hasn’t been ‘banned’ and it was Aberdeen student union, not the university. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear to me we have the same suspects criticising the OP just because he used a link from the Daily Mail. In your world if it's in the Mail it's not true. However as the report was first reported in the Telegraph it just shows how these usual suspects have a very narrowed view. I await all the back tracking and the forthcoming attacks on the Telegraph next by the same usual suspects. Personally if a student at a Scottish uni now cannot quote a line written by a famous Scottish person during a debate there is a serious problem at that University. " so if a student starts shouting out quotes from Kier Hardy, in the middle of a debate, thats freespeach as well, and should be protected? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear to me we have the same suspects criticising the OP just because he used a link from the Daily Mail. In your world if it's in the Mail it's not true. However as the report was first reported in the Telegraph it just shows how these usual suspects have a very narrowed view. I await all the back tracking and the forthcoming attacks on the Telegraph next by the same usual suspects. Personally if a student at a Scottish uni now cannot quote a line written by a famous Scottish person during a debate there is a serious problem at that University. so if a student starts shouting out quotes from Kier Hardy, in the middle of a debate, thats freespeach as well, and should be protected?" Why wouldn't someone be allowed to quote Kier Hardie? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear to me we have the same suspects criticising the OP just because he used a link from the Daily Mail. In your world if it's in the Mail it's not true. However as the report was first reported in the Telegraph it just shows how these usual suspects have a very narrowed view. I await all the back tracking and the forthcoming attacks on the Telegraph next by the same usual suspects. Personally if a student at a Scottish uni now cannot quote a line written by a famous Scottish person during a debate there is a serious problem at that University. " Quite funny that you think the Telegraph is some bastion of integrity that will have everyone scrambling to back track. The 'universities are full of crazy woke students!' narrative is constantly and eagerly pushed by the right, it's not some fringe position. Maybe waiting to hear both sides of the story would be wise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear to me we have the same suspects criticising the OP just because he used a link from the Daily Mail. In your world if it's in the Mail it's not true. However as the report was first reported in the Telegraph it just shows how these usual suspects have a very narrowed view. I await all the back tracking and the forthcoming attacks on the Telegraph next by the same usual suspects. Personally if a student at a Scottish uni now cannot quote a line written by a famous Scottish person during a debate there is a serious problem at that University. so if a student starts shouting out quotes from Kier Hardy, in the middle of a debate, thats freespeach as well, and should be protected? Why wouldn't someone be allowed to quote Kier Hardie?" because you can bet your last pound that if it happened the likes of the daily fail would be ranting like crazy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear to me we have the same suspects criticising the OP just because he used a link from the Daily Mail. In your world if it's in the Mail it's not true. However as the report was first reported in the Telegraph it just shows how these usual suspects have a very narrowed view. I await all the back tracking and the forthcoming attacks on the Telegraph next by the same usual suspects. Personally if a student at a Scottish uni now cannot quote a line written by a famous Scottish person during a debate there is a serious problem at that University. so if a student starts shouting out quotes from Kier Hardy, in the middle of a debate, thats freespeach as well, and should be protected? Why wouldn't someone be allowed to quote Kier Hardie? because you can bet your last pound that if it happened the likes of the daily fail would be ranting like crazy " And I would stand by the person making the comment. Not everyone who thinks differently to you automatically thinks the daily mail is gospel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The daily mirror has the story are you all going to dismiss that one too?" Tawdry rag  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear to me we have the same suspects criticising the OP just because he used a link from the Daily Mail. In your world if it's in the Mail it's not true. However as the report was first reported in the Telegraph it just shows how these usual suspects have a very narrowed view. I await all the back tracking and the forthcoming attacks on the Telegraph next by the same usual suspects. Personally if a student at a Scottish uni now cannot quote a line written by a famous Scottish person during a debate there is a serious problem at that University. so if a student starts shouting out quotes from Kier Hardy, in the middle of a debate, thats freespeach as well, and should be protected? Why wouldn't someone be allowed to quote Kier Hardie? because you can bet your last pound that if it happened the likes of the daily fail would be ranting like crazy And I would stand by the person making the comment. Not everyone who thinks differently to you automatically thinks the daily mail is gospel" the problem is the daily mail, they look for outrage, to create anger, hurt. they've seized on a minor incident and tried to stoke the culture war flames | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case." Unless I've misread the OP he never states or implies that Rule Britannia is banned but rather said that a 19 year old was banned for two weeks for shout it. I'm struggling to see how you leap to your conclusion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The daily mirror has the story are you all going to dismiss that one too?" I am dismissing the title of this thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. Unless I've misread the OP he never states or implies that Rule Britannia is banned but rather said that a 19 year old was banned for two weeks for shout it. I'm struggling to see how you leap to your conclusion?" Have you read the thread title | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. What I take from this is that people who don't like Chris will automatically jump to their own conclusions without knowing both sides of the story. He is simply presenting that one side. Wrong maybe, but why can't people counter it with the other side rather than ridicule what may actually be true. We know that daily mail can be taken with a pinch of salt and print sensationalist article but that doesn't make them false." because it’s all about point scoring and by the way what the fuck is wrong with rule britania am I missing something ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would appear to me we have the same suspects criticising the OP just because he used a link from the Daily Mail. In your world if it's in the Mail it's not true. However as the report was first reported in the Telegraph it just shows how these usual suspects have a very narrowed view. I await all the back tracking and the forthcoming attacks on the Telegraph next by the same usual suspects. Personally if a student at a Scottish uni now cannot quote a line written by a famous Scottish person during a debate there is a serious problem at that University. so if a student starts shouting out quotes from Kier Hardy, in the middle of a debate, thats freespeach as well, and should be protected?" Shouting out? No that would be rude. No suggestion this student did anything except write Rule Britannia, so yes you can write any quote you like no problem. I like a bit of Keir Hardie. The legal limitation would obviously be incitement etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech." They do but the trend is only if it suits their narrative and that now seems to be the accepted universal freedom of speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context " why would the British military make anyone feel uncomfortable while recruiting tho I don’t get it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. Unless I've misread the OP he never states or implies that Rule Britannia is banned but rather said that a 19 year old was banned for two weeks for shout it. I'm struggling to see how you leap to your conclusion? Have you read the thread title " Yes I did. It's a headline exactly the way any newspaper uses it, to catch attention and has little else other for people to read what the post is then saying. It's the content that gives the information, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? So ignoring the OPs tendency to fall apart as soon as anyone is alert to injustice and racism. Yet claims to be alert to this alleged injustice. What can we tell. This story is standard Daily Mail outrage. Before the paper was known for spreading hate, it was more known for this kind of "outrage" type story. What we can see from this article is, we have one side of the story. And we actually have no idea why she has been suspended for two weeks until the university makes a statement. What we can also tell is that the OP has believed every word of the Daily Mail without question. And has made the leap to thinking Rule Britannia has been banned. Which of course, is not the case. Unless I've misread the OP he never states or implies that Rule Britannia is banned but rather said that a 19 year old was banned for two weeks for shout it. I'm struggling to see how you leap to your conclusion? Have you read the thread title Yes I did. It's a headline exactly the way any newspaper uses it, to catch attention and has little else other for people to read what the post is then saying. It's the content that gives the information, no?" A misleading and inaccurate headline? This isn’t a newspaper , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context why would the British military make anyone feel uncomfortable while recruiting tho I don’t get it ?" No idea, people feel differently about different things? It wouldn’t bother me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. They do but the trend is only if it suits their narrative and that now seems to be the accepted universal freedom of speech." What is your own personal definition of ‘freedom of speech’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context why would the British military make anyone feel uncomfortable while recruiting tho I don’t get it ?" Reading the Mirror article, there were people in the discussion from places with a past as part of an empire. I don't find the Armed Forces intimidating - I've served myself - but I can understand why some people might not like seeing people in uniform in what is their temporary home. Some of those students will also have grown up in places with civil war etc. Reading the article, the SU appear to have used a sledgehammer to crack a nut but the headlines are clearly clickbait for flag-shaggers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context why would the British military make anyone feel uncomfortable while recruiting tho I don’t get it ? No idea, people feel differently about different things? It wouldn’t bother me " it wouldn’t me either but I don’t understand why the poster is getting stuck he’s quoting a newspaper people do it all the time on here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html" It is discusting but many universities in Britain are guilty of this kind of censorship,Oxford and Cambridge being really bad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.htmlIt is discusting but many universities in Britain are guilty of this kind of censorship,Oxford and Cambridge being really bad" Any examples to back up your dubious claims? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate As I've said no one knows the context. They stated they cannot prove it but banned her anyway. Is that ok? I have just given you the context , why would this student want say ‘rule Britannia ‘ during the debate? You haven't given any context. You don't know how or why it was said. You're guessing It was written during an online debate about the British army being allowed to recruit on the campus it followed the line : 'If the British military makes them feel uncomfortable, why did they come to a British uni?' There is your context why would the British military make anyone feel uncomfortable while recruiting tho I don’t get it ? No idea, people feel differently about different things? It wouldn’t bother me it wouldn’t me either but I don’t understand why the poster is getting stuck he’s quoting a newspaper people do it all the time on here " Because Aberdeen haven’t ‘banned rule Britannia’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.htmlIt is discusting but many universities in Britain are guilty of this kind of censorship,Oxford and Cambridge being really bad" i must live in a bubble because I’m fucked of oil know why anyone would be offended by British military recruiting in Britain or someone saying rule britainnia in a discussion about British military lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.htmlIt is discusting but many universities in Britain are guilty of this kind of censorship,Oxford and Cambridge being really bad" Not all speakers should be given equal value or weight | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a person was ejected from an organised debate for heckling as heckling is disallowed .... seems a bit of RW culture warrior drama queenery going on over the selfish actions of a rude person" Indeed, the fake moral outrage and snowflakery has been noted | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a person was ejected from an organised debate for heckling as heckling is disallowed .... seems a bit of RW culture warrior drama queenery going on over the selfish actions of a rude person Indeed, the fake moral outrage and snowflakery has been noted " She did not heckle according to the article, that's rubbish. She wrote the words during an online debate which were screenshot and reported afterwards. This subject is entirely about freedom of speech nothing to do with rude behaviour. As I'm sure you're aware. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a person was ejected from an organised debate for heckling as heckling is disallowed .... seems a bit of RW culture warrior drama queenery going on over the selfish actions of a rude person Indeed, the fake moral outrage and snowflakery has been noted " The right wing are mad to cancel anyone who says anything these days. Now they're trying to cancel a whole university, based on speculation of what someone might have said, without waiting to hear what actually happened.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a person was ejected from an organised debate for heckling as heckling is disallowed .... seems a bit of RW culture warrior drama queenery going on over the selfish actions of a rude person Indeed, the fake moral outrage and snowflakery has been noted She did not heckle according to the article, that's rubbish. She wrote the words during an online debate which were screenshot and reported afterwards. This subject is entirely about freedom of speech nothing to do with rude behaviour. As I'm sure you're aware. " "Rule Britannia banned Aberdeen Uni" Is what you said. Which is not true at all. We've yet to hear what reason the SU have given for banning her for two weeks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a person was ejected from an organised debate for heckling as heckling is disallowed .... seems a bit of RW culture warrior drama queenery going on over the selfish actions of a rude person Indeed, the fake moral outrage and snowflakery has been noted She did not heckle according to the article, that's rubbish. She wrote the words during an online debate which were screenshot and reported afterwards. This subject is entirely about freedom of speech nothing to do with rude behaviour. As I'm sure you're aware. " This non story seems to have ‘triggered ‘ you Chris. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a person was ejected from an organised debate for heckling as heckling is disallowed .... seems a bit of RW culture warrior drama queenery going on over the selfish actions of a rude person Indeed, the fake moral outrage and snowflakery has been noted She did not heckle according to the article, that's rubbish. She wrote the words during an online debate which were screenshot and reported afterwards. This subject is entirely about freedom of speech nothing to do with rude behaviour. As I'm sure you're aware. "Rule Britannia banned Aberdeen Uni" Is what you said. Which is not true at all. We've yet to hear what reason the SU have given for banning her for two weeks." and last I checked, the SU cannot ban someone from the university, only events they organise, storm in a tea cup being dramatised by the daily fail | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My title was entirely accurate do you want to address the issue at all? I think banning the phrase is the behaviour of snowflakes. How about you? " The title you used is not accurate. The phrase has not been banned by the university. Would you like another go or have you sufficiently recharged your attention seeking batteries for today?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My title was entirely accurate do you want to address the issue at all? I think banning the phrase is the behaviour of snowflakes. How about you? " Your acting like a snowflake , just because a student got banned from a student union | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My title was entirely accurate do you want to address the issue at all? I think banning the phrase is the behaviour of snowflakes. How about you? " No one has banned the phrase. So why are you outraged by something that hasn't happened? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best thing to come out of this tired, sad little thread, is the term flag shaggers. Sums our little englanders faux outrage, snowflake, anti woke brigade up nicely. "The term flag shaggers is one the SNP supporters use to describe the ridiculous orange men parades and those who take part. It's spot on ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme." They have started already with opting out of Erasmus | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus" and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election" They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday." oh those paranoid stalinists in government | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. oh those paranoid stalinists in government "Come on guys, your missing the point, Chris is upset about a student being banned from a student union, that is the big story here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a person was ejected from an organised debate for heckling as heckling is disallowed .... seems a bit of RW culture warrior drama queenery going on over the selfish actions of a rude person Indeed, the fake moral outrage and snowflakery has been noted She did not heckle according to the article, that's rubbish. She wrote the words during an online debate which were screenshot and reported afterwards. This subject is entirely about freedom of speech nothing to do with rude behaviour. As I'm sure you're aware. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. oh those paranoid stalinists in government
Come on guys, your missing the point, Chris is upset about a student being banned from a student union, that is the big story here "thst sort of thing wouldn't happen in the British Empire, he'd send the conscripts in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My title was entirely accurate do you want to address the issue at all? I think banning the phrase is the behaviour of snowflakes. How about you? No one has banned the phrase. So why are you outraged by something that hasn't happened?" If you can keep people angry about things that haven't happened it distracts their attention from things that really are happening. Like the removal of the right to peaceful protests, or the Foreign Secretary deciding that human rights shouldn't be a barrier to trade, or spunking £2m on a Russian built flatpack vanity project. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday." Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable " Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable " no it's not reasonable, it means your civil liberites are defined by any old buffoon in a cops uniform | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. " Why do you keep using that phrase (and variants thereof), losing the right to protest... It's simply not true! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. They do but the trend is only if it suits their narrative and that now seems to be the accepted universal freedom of speech. What is your own personal definition of ‘freedom of speech’? " How is that my definition? Can you deny this is not the way 'freedom of speech' is going with all the latest activities and jobs lost due to speaking out against the earlier aptly described 'ashleep' narrative? One out of line comment today hangs someone and the many years of good work is overlooked, silencing anyone who may disagree with fear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. Why do you keep using that phrase (and variants thereof), losing the right to protest... It's simply not true!" Okay, severely restricted rights when it comes to protesting. How's that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's forget your personal views on Chris for a second. Is this a good thing? Just 3 days ago everyone was arguing for the right to freedom of expression. Whether saying Rule Brittania in this instance as right or wrong (I don'tknow the context), surely those same people supporting freedom of expression for the Clapham protestors must support it in this instance too? Clapham protestors - trying to make a point about the murder of a woman at what looks like the hands of a serving policeman Aberdeen - one eejet trying torile up the crowd comparable? Do you know the context in which this student said this? Or are you just saying that's how it was without actually being part of the discussion? It was written during an online debate about the British Army being allowed to recruit on the Campus. Why would the student in question feel the need to say ‘Rule Britannia ‘ during this debate Why not ask them ,is it now illegal to say rule Britannia? i cannot believe people are not actually defending freedom of speech. They do but the trend is only if it suits their narrative and that now seems to be the accepted universal freedom of speech. What is your own personal definition of ‘freedom of speech’? How is that my definition? Can you deny this is not the way 'freedom of speech' is going with all the latest activities and jobs lost due to speaking out against the earlier aptly described 'ashleep' narrative? One out of line comment today hangs someone and the many years of good work is overlooked, silencing anyone who may disagree with fear." Pardon? I was asking what your definition was as everyone seems to have a different version. Name one person who has been unfairly ‘silenced’ ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.htmlIt is discusting but many universities in Britain are guilty of this kind of censorship,Oxford and Cambridge being really bad Any examples to back up your dubious claims? " A case of good knowledge of news events cannot even remember the month of these things does it matter I do not invent these things. This sort of cencorship goes on in most Universities all the time has done for a long time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.htmlIt is discusting but many universities in Britain are guilty of this kind of censorship,Oxford and Cambridge being really bad Any examples to back up your dubious claims? A case of good knowledge of news events cannot even remember the month of these things does it matter I do not invent these things. This sort of cencorship goes on in most Universities all the time has done for a long time" What sort of censorship? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.htmlIt is discusting but many universities in Britain are guilty of this kind of censorship,Oxford and Cambridge being really bad Any examples to back up your dubious claims? A case of good knowledge of news events cannot even remember the month of these things does it matter I do not invent these things. This sort of cencorship goes on in most Universities all the time has done for a long time" Does it? It happens ‘all the time ‘ in ‘most’ universities yet you cant give me one example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. " For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. " Heckling during an online debate, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. " So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see." iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol" The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail " The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour"." Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban " Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws?" Do you have the full text of what was said? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? " Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them." I would have a look at the type of things she has been posting on social media , it is a miracle she is allowed to stay at any university.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them." I got thrown out of the student union bar once. I'd had about 10 pints. Can't remember what I said. So I assume they kicked me out for no real reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them. I got thrown out of the student union bar once. I'd had about 10 pints. Can't remember what I said. So I assume they kicked me out for no real reason." The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh " I'm just speculating now but . . . I doubt the words that got her suspended were "Rule Britannia" on their own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them. I got thrown out of the student union bar once. I'd had about 10 pints. Can't remember what I said. So I assume they kicked me out for no real reason. The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh " Could you point me towards which platforms as I couldn't find anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them. I got thrown out of the student union bar once. I'd had about 10 pints. Can't remember what I said. So I assume they kicked me out for no real reason. The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh Could you point me towards which platforms as I couldn't find anything." Are you on Twitter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh I'm just speculating now but . . . I doubt the words that got her suspended were "Rule Britannia" on their own." They weren’t, if you dig into her social media history this was the tip of the iceberg | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them. I got thrown out of the student union bar once. I'd had about 10 pints. Can't remember what I said. So I assume they kicked me out for no real reason. The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh Could you point me towards which platforms as I couldn't find anything. Are you on Twitter? " No but I've googled her name and twitter. Couldn't find her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them. I got thrown out of the student union bar once. I'd had about 10 pints. Can't remember what I said. So I assume they kicked me out for no real reason. The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh Could you point me towards which platforms as I couldn't find anything. Are you on Twitter? No but I've googled her name and twitter. Couldn't find her" It’s all over Twitter, she has now hidden her account, I don’t want to repeat the vile things she has tweeted on here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them. I got thrown out of the student union bar once. I'd had about 10 pints. Can't remember what I said. So I assume they kicked me out for no real reason. The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh Could you point me towards which platforms as I couldn't find anything. Are you on Twitter? No but I've googled her name and twitter. Couldn't find her It’s all over Twitter, she has now hidden her account, I don’t want to repeat the vile things she has tweeted on here " Then tell me someone who has retweeted or whatever? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the ridiculous right will be cancelling education altogether next ... their culture paranoia is getting more extreme. They have started already with opting out of Erasmus and officially cancelling any left thought in primary and secondry education .... but then the conservatives have noticably dropped thier stalinist ideology card since the last election They've effectively cancelled peaceful protest as of yesterday. Thats not exactly true is it... Everyone still has the right to peaceful protest, do so if you wish ... just as long as it doesn't disrupt those around you. Perfectly reasonable Any protest causes some form of disruption. If you're comfortable losing the right to public protest, fair enough. But we now join: Egypt China Russia North Korea Iran Myanmar Where protests can be legally restricted. Still, let's concentrate on the main issue at hand. Someone was banned from the student union in Aberdeen, for an as yet unconfirmed reason. For writing the words Rule Britannia during an online debate is the reason. I know this because it says it in the story. So this story is fact, there is no other side to this, no other possible reason? Don't want to wait for a statement from the university SU? Much better to just over react, claim a bunch of bollocks like "Rule Britannia banned". I see.iv still not got a fucking clue what’s wrong with writing rule Britannia like lol The words haven’t been banned, just some random student decided to write it during a debate about the British army being at Aberdeen University breaking its online debating rules, it is a none story that had triggered the right wingers who read the daily mail The union told her she had breached three parts of a bylaw, including rules against offending others, using "foul and abusive language", and engaging in discriminatory or anti-social behaviour". Exactly, she obviously deserved her ban Saying Rule Brittania break those 3 bylaws? Do you have the full text of what was said? Nope. However, if the union won't give their side of the story then what are we to believe? The Mirror have asked them. I got thrown out of the student union bar once. I'd had about 10 pints. Can't remember what I said. So I assume they kicked me out for no real reason. The student who got banned has made several racist, homophobic & pro Nazi posts on social media, no surprise tbh Could you point me towards which platforms as I couldn't find anything. Are you on Twitter? No but I've googled her name and twitter. Couldn't find her It’s all over Twitter, she has now hidden her account, I don’t want to repeat the vile things she has tweeted on here Then tell me someone who has retweeted or whatever?" Loads of people have, there are offensive tweets, Tik Tok videos, she is obviously stupid because her ‘5 minutes of fame’ will definitely mean that she will be thrown out of university . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Otto_English "If you read: "19 year old banned from student union for saying 'Rule Britannia'" - and don't then think "is that the whole story - or am I being played here?" Then you're the reason these 'stories' are out there." The screenshots I've seen of her account are vile. Just look at trending topics and click on Rule Britannia, it's not hard. If you can't find it then you're avoiding it." I am amazed that she was allowed at any university, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like the suspension has been lifted..." She won’t be at university for much longer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"toby young says he is offended "He is such a snowflake | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what's the moral of the story here? 1. Jump straight to conclusions before knowing the facts, because facts don't matter. 2. Inflate the importance of the story 100 fold, claim that words and songs have been cancelled. 3. Accuse everyone of "cancel culture", say "woke" lots, and throw in a few "snowflake" for good measure. 4. Put 100% faith in the Daily Mail that they did all the necessary research before publishing the story." It is just right wing click bait, embarrassing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what's the moral of the story here? 1. Jump straight to conclusions before knowing the facts, because facts don't matter. 2. Inflate the importance of the story 100 fold, claim that words and songs have been cancelled. 3. Accuse everyone of "cancel culture", say "woke" lots, and throw in a few "snowflake" for good measure. 4. Put 100% faith in the Daily Mail that they did all the necessary research before publishing the story. It is just right wing click bait, embarrassing " asnt the left wing squad been in here all day talking about it aswell lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Otto_English "If you read: "19 year old banned from student union for saying 'Rule Britannia'" - and don't then think "is that the whole story - or am I being played here?" Then you're the reason these 'stories' are out there." The screenshots I've seen of her account are vile. Just look at trending topics and click on Rule Britannia, it's not hard. If you can't find it then you're avoiding it." Did you miss the bit where I said I'm not on twitter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what's the moral of the story here? 1. Jump straight to conclusions before knowing the facts, because facts don't matter. 2. Inflate the importance of the story 100 fold, claim that words and songs have been cancelled. 3. Accuse everyone of "cancel culture", say "woke" lots, and throw in a few "snowflake" for good measure. 4. Put 100% faith in the Daily Mail that they did all the necessary research before publishing the story. It is just right wing click bait, embarrassing asnt the left wing squad been in here all day talking about it aswell lol" I don't know who you include in the "left wing squad". But we've been pointing out all day how this is a non-story without all the facts. And that lots of things the OP assumed, were in fact, bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Otto_English "If you read: "19 year old banned from student union for saying 'Rule Britannia'" - and don't then think "is that the whole story - or am I being played here?" Then you're the reason these 'stories' are out there." The screenshots I've seen of her account are vile. Just look at trending topics and click on Rule Britannia, it's not hard. If you can't find it then you're avoiding it. Did you miss the bit where I said I'm not on twitter? " I had a look. I didn't think it was super interesting. Katie Hopkins type stuff. Anti LGBTQ, anti foreigner. Basic low level anti right nonsence. I don't know how you can see it without Twitter. Maybe someone else knows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Otto_English "If you read: "19 year old banned from student union for saying 'Rule Britannia'" - and don't then think "is that the whole story - or am I being played here?" Then you're the reason these 'stories' are out there." The screenshots I've seen of her account are vile. Just look at trending topics and click on Rule Britannia, it's not hard. If you can't find it then you're avoiding it. Did you miss the bit where I said I'm not on twitter? I had a look. I didn't think it was super interesting. Katie Hopkins type stuff. Anti LGBTQ, anti foreigner. Basic low level anti right nonsence. I don't know how you can see it without Twitter. Maybe someone else knows." So she's an extreme right wing nut job?? If that's the case then she doesn't deserve to sit at the table anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Otto_English "If you read: "19 year old banned from student union for saying 'Rule Britannia'" - and don't then think "is that the whole story - or am I being played here?" Then you're the reason these 'stories' are out there." The screenshots I've seen of her account are vile. Just look at trending topics and click on Rule Britannia, it's not hard. If you can't find it then you're avoiding it. Did you miss the bit where I said I'm not on twitter? I had a look. I didn't think it was super interesting. Katie Hopkins type stuff. Anti LGBTQ, anti foreigner. Basic low level anti right nonsence. I don't know how you can see it without Twitter. Maybe someone else knows. So she's an extreme right wing nut job?? If that's the case then she doesn't deserve to sit at the table anyway." I mean, some of it was pretty horrific. Someone had collated some of her stuff in screenshots. I assume all the worst bits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Otto_English "If you read: "19 year old banned from student union for saying 'Rule Britannia'" - and don't then think "is that the whole story - or am I being played here?" Then you're the reason these 'stories' are out there." The screenshots I've seen of her account are vile. Just look at trending topics and click on Rule Britannia, it's not hard. If you can't find it then you're avoiding it. Did you miss the bit where I said I'm not on twitter? " Can’t help you then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html" Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words! "So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?"been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol"Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia". This is a none story. She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
"so ya can say rule Britannia then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then "Yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Of course I demanded a recount. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes."to be used with caution though.. .  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
."why | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why"Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers."No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it. Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"toby young says he is offended "He's a professional at getting offended. Like Piers Morgan. They freak out at the slightest thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
"This whole thing is a huge non-story. Click bait nonsense based on the word of someone who lied about why they were banned from the Student Union. Who seemingly has a history of posting hate and bigotry on social media. The story also works as a distraction from what's really going on in the news. Whatever you think about the Daily Mail, their click bait and distraction tactics work. They're slick and we'll funded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
This whole thing is a huge non-story.
Click bait nonsense based on the word of someone who lied about why they were banned from the Student Union.
Who seemingly has a history of posting hate and bigotry on social media.
The story also works as a distraction from what's really going on in the news.
Whatever you think about the Daily Mail, their click bait and distraction tactics work. They're slick and we'll funded. "Is it correct the Union council actually ended up overturning the policy of banning the military from the campus? Very much a non story, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
"them days are history ffs it’s just a song if people get offended there must be something wrong with them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
them days are history ffs it’s just a song if people get offended there must be something wrong with them "Indeed. No one has been offended by it though. Not in this story anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
This whole thing is a huge non-story.
Click bait nonsense based on the word of someone who lied about why they were banned from the Student Union.
Who seemingly has a history of posting hate and bigotry on social media.
The story also works as a distraction from what's really going on in the news.
Whatever you think about the Daily Mail, their click bait and distraction tactics work. They're slick and we'll funded.
Is it correct the Union council actually ended up overturning the policy of banning the military from the campus?
Very much a non story, yes."Couldn't see if they did or didn't overturn the decision. This all happened back in December. So they probably made a decision back then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"toby young says he is offended "Does he still think covid Is no worse than a cold? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?"The speaker was giving out info regards having troops on campus and she did a student type call out.. rule britannia... Lol i stopped reading and moved on.... what is happening? Cant they say, shut up girl, I'm the one speaking? Guess they can't anymore lol so they ban them instead lol so progressive lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
This whole thing is a huge non-story.
Click bait nonsense based on the word of someone who lied about why they were banned from the Student Union.
Who seemingly has a history of posting hate and bigotry on social media.
The story also works as a distraction from what's really going on in the news.
Whatever you think about the Daily Mail, their click bait and distraction tactics work. They're slick and we'll funded. "Love that little word seemingly Seemingly a lot of snowflakes offended by Rule Britannia Terrible really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
This whole thing is a huge non-story.
Click bait nonsense based on the word of someone who lied about why they were banned from the Student Union.
Who seemingly has a history of posting hate and bigotry on social media.
The story also works as a distraction from what's really going on in the news.
Whatever you think about the Daily Mail, their click bait and distraction tactics work. They're slick and we'll funded.
Love that little word seemingly
Seemingly a lot of snowflakes offended by Rule Britannia
Terrible really"Need a board rubber bounced off head lol im not sure how I'm so well balanced lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?
The speaker was giving out info regards having troops on campus and she did a student type call out.. rule britannia...
Lol i stopped reading and moved on.... what is happening? Cant they say, shut up girl, I'm the one speaking? Guess they can't anymore lol so they ban them instead lol so progressive lol "What! That's what she got banned for?. If she shouted out something different would she still get the ban or just told to be quite | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
This whole thing is a huge non-story.
Click bait nonsense based on the word of someone who lied about why they were banned from the Student Union.
Who seemingly has a history of posting hate and bigotry on social media.
The story also works as a distraction from what's really going on in the news.
Whatever you think about the Daily Mail, their click bait and distraction tactics work. They're slick and we'll funded.
Love that little word seemingly
Seemingly a lot of snowflakes offended by Rule Britannia
Terrible really"A lot of snowflakes offended by a student being banned from a student Union debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?
The speaker was giving out info regards having troops on campus and she did a student type call out.. rule britannia...
Lol i stopped reading and moved on.... what is happening? Cant they say, shut up girl, I'm the one speaking? Guess they can't anymore lol so they ban them instead lol so progressive lol
What! That's what she got banned for?. If she shouted out something different would she still get the ban or just told to be quite"Let's see what else is said tomorrow but thats seems to be issue. ... bizarre? But the world now is! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
This whole thing is a huge non-story.
Click bait nonsense based on the word of someone who lied about why they were banned from the Student Union.
Who seemingly has a history of posting hate and bigotry on social media.
The story also works as a distraction from what's really going on in the news.
Whatever you think about the Daily Mail, their click bait and distraction tactics work. They're slick and we'll funded.
Love that little word seemingly
Seemingly a lot of snowflakes offended by Rule Britannia
Terrible really
A lot of snowflakes offended by a student being banned from a student Union debate " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What on Earth is going on here. Mad woke behaviour in my book. “A university student has been banned from Aberdeen University's union for two weeks after sayng 'Rule Britannia' during a debate on the British Army Elizabeth Heverin, 19, received the ban after quoting the historic anthem prompted another student to complain.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9374577/Student-19-banned-Aberdeen-Universitys-union-saying-Rule-Britannia.html Telegraph says she literally said rule britannia in response to having troops on campus, and they banned her lol fuck, we actually had to throw something at the speaker other than words!
So not just in the daily mail then by the sound of it. Have they said what they find so wrong with what was said? Is it deemed offensive?been asking that all day mate no one seems to know lol
Nothing. No one apart from the girl who got banned from the student union said it had anything to do with the words "Rule Britannia".
This is a none story.
She broke the rules in a debate. Got banned for two weeks.
so ya can say rule Britannia then
Yes.
to be used with caution though..
.why
Because it causes outrage for the Daily Mail and its readers.
No, the outrage only manifests itself if they are told they can't sing it or say it.
Sing it or say it as much as you like, just maybe think about the company in which you are using it as the notion that Britannia may go and rule can offend some...
This whole thing is a huge non-story.
Click bait nonsense based on the word of someone who lied about why they were banned from the Student Union.
Who seemingly has a history of posting hate and bigotry on social media.
The story also works as a distraction from what's really going on in the news.
Whatever you think about the Daily Mail, their click bait and distraction tactics work. They're slick and we'll funded.
Love that little word seemingly
Seemingly a lot of snowflakes offended by Rule Britannia
Terrible really
A lot of snowflakes offended by a student being banned from a student Union debate "Perhaps she should have shouted out rule the SNP or rule Labour as probably no action would have been taken. If it was taken I suspect we would hear a different tune here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
