It was not the picture that caused Magdalen College problems

I have no problem with the postgraduate students at Magdalen College Oxford choosing what pictures to place on their wall. Rotating your pictures or finding one you like better is an enjoyable luxury to have.

The problem came with the way the MCR decided to make or allow this to become a political issue and a matter of national debate. Their explanation of why a picture of the Queen was not suitable gained the approval of some and the condemnation of others. A student common room  which needs to allow all its members of whatever view or background to feel valued and respected ended up dividing opinion by being too free with its explanations. Had they said if anyone had bothered to ask they just wanted a change or a different decorative effect there would have been no story. Now monarchists there may feel on edge.

I raise this to frame a wider debate. It is most important our universities themselves are strictly independent of political opinion or intellectual bias. There should not be a collective student view formed by a majority on the role of the Queen and what she symbolises. There should  be no College or university view of which democratic parties are worthy of support.  There can and should be many different student views of politics, with individuals and issue based societies seeking to make converts and expressing their views as they see fit within the law. The university, the College, or the debating society needs to offer platforms for the main strands of thought and democratic politics so young people can hear for themselves and dispute with believers. The danger is universities become too narrow in a collective view, and no platform people who represent legitimate and often popular positions.

Today there is a feeling amongst populists who favour national democracies and more individual freedoms that universities are hostile to them and unwilling to hear their case. As someone who is not a voter for AFD, Lega, the US  Republicans or National Rally, who does not support all their views  and who keeps out of expressing individual views on foreign elections, I  nonetheless am uneasy if UK universities think representatives of these parties and  viewpoints should be excluded from the global debate. A majority of students may well have disliked President Trump and disapproved of some of his views, but they should be willing to hear the case of  the supporters of someone who commanded millions of votes in the world’s most powerful democracy. Currently in the EU some anti EU parties are front runners in opinion polls. University people  need to understand why and to hear the arguments, even if they do stay resolutely in favour of the EU project.

Democracy thrives on lively exchanges of varied viewpoints and on free votes to determine who has made the most successful popular appeal. In an age of scepticism about a ruling elite of rich business people, powerful officials and a gilded group of establishment politicians Universities need to understand both their aims and why so many people disagree with their consensus.

236 Comments

  1. Peter
    June 10, 2021

    ‘No platform’ is a new phrase and it’s a growing trend.

    I do remember speakers getting hassled by students in the 1970s. Occupying buildings or ‘sit ins’ was another form of student protest. However, banning speakers was not so organised as it is today.

    Reply
    1. jerry
      June 10, 2021

      @Peter; Indeed, but before some (especially on the right) get on their high horses they should reflect how these (mostly) left-wing elements that so enrage today have simply learnt to use this ‘No platform’ approach, having learnt from those with fundamental traditional views.

      From the late 1960s to the early ’80s I’m sure you’ll agree that some pretty radical ideas were given platforms and thus the pros and cons of ideas got debated, be that in car parks, colleges, on the broadcast media or in parliament its-self, but then came a renewed traditionalist moral crusade in the 1980s which culminated in many such people or opinions being de-platformed.

      Be careful of unintended consequences…

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 10, 2021

        Jerry,
        Have you got any examples of people or opinions, in the 1980s being no platformed or cancelled by “this renewed traditional.moral crusade”

        Reply
      2. NickC
        June 10, 2021

        Not so, Jerry, the intolerant “no platforming” of students to the right of Labour was certainly evident throughout the 1970s at universities. In the 1980s such bigotry began to include a virulent hatred of Margaret Thatcher as well, still evident today. Cultural marxism began its long march through the UK’s institutions at least as far back as the 1960s (possibly as far back as the 1930s). It has culminated in the cancel culture of today, where people lose their jobs because of wrongthink.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 10, 2021

          @NickC; I wasn’t talking just about students, what about Section 28, the ban in hearing the IRA speak directly, banning union strike meetings held in factory car parks or the local sports club field and many others who had their ‘platforms’ removed during the 1980s.

          Reply
          1. Peter
            June 10, 2021

            The IRA events were state censorship – not removing a platform initiated by various pressure groups.

            Right and left had more opportunities to make their points. Peter

          2. Peter2
            June 10, 2021

            Come off it Jerry.
            People who worked in factories and voted in public were in fear of their safety if they voted against strike action.
            Are you still opposed to secret ballots for strike action?

            And who are these many others who had their platforms removed?

          3. jerry
            June 11, 2021

            @Peter; Censorship is removing someone’s platform, and I question that the IRA ban was not due to a pressure group, the Unionist’s were (and still are) quite a strong pressure group.

            My original point was not about who took such platforms away but how, by doing so, others learnt the power of de-platforming.

            Reply Successive UK governments banned the IRA all the time they regarded killing people as a legitimate part of their political process. UK governments always said that if the IRA renounced the use of violence then they could have platforms , run for election etc.

          4. NickC
            June 11, 2021

            Ludicrous, Jerry, only the IRA, as a cabal of murderers, was prevented from publicising their own views (it was wartime) – and Sinn Fein did it for them anyway. No-one was “de-platformed” in the modern sense in the 1980s, unless you were a student with centre or right wing views. Everyone else had vastly more freedom to hold and promote their views back then. Indeed, in the public sphere, the concept of “de-platforming” did not exist.

          5. jerry
            June 11, 2021

            @JR reply; I was talking about the IRA/SF ban on being heard on broadcast media, not their proscribing, which I fully agreed with.

            @NickC; You totally miss my point, as usual.

      3. Peter
        June 10, 2021

        Jerry,
        Remind me. I don’t remember a ‘renewed traditionalist moral crusade in the 1980s’.

        I do remember Mrs. Whitehouse in earlier decades. She got some publicity but did not change much. The BBC counted the number of swear words in programmes and that was about it.

        I don’t remember anybody – on the left or right – being ’de-platformed’ ; not even paedophiles (as they started calling themselves) who became emboldened and even garnered some support in Parliament.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 10, 2021

          @Peter; Read my reply to NickC above (assuming it is published), but you’re very much mistaken if you think the moralists such as Mrs Whitehouse lost ground in the 1980s, it was their decade of most influence!

          If I may, just to touch on one issue you brought up, it was the outrage rightly felt towards paedophiles which lead to certain not totally throughout or helpful moralistic & legal changes in the 1980s, this lead many people and the police to believe innocent images of children playing naked in the bath, garden or on the beach were automatically illegal – remember the case of that ITN news reader?

          A state of affairs only partially corrected by the 2003 Sexual offences Act, but then caused other unintended absurdities. As I said, be careful of the consequences caused…

          Reply
          1. NickC
            June 11, 2021

            Jerry, You don’t seem to understand what “de-platforming” is.

          2. jerry
            June 11, 2021

            @NickC; Indeed, I do not understand what you mean by “de-platforming”, it appears to mean something different other than ‘Censorship’ to you.

        2. Peter2
          June 10, 2021

          I very much agree Peter.

          Reply
        3. rose
          June 11, 2021

          Mrs Whitehouse was banned from appearing on the BBC by the then DG, Hugh Greene, not just petty but tyrannical. It stayed in force until he died.

          Reply
          1. jerry
            June 12, 2021

            @rose; That comment probably tells us more about yourself than it does Greene, give the number of platforms Greene as DG of the BBC give to many others – oh hang on, I understand your resentment…

    2. MiC
      June 10, 2021

      If certain speakers did not have a track record of using any public platform for the purpose of nothing more than spreading easily provable lies, then they would probably not be prevented from using them.

      Why should any reputable body degrade and diminish itself by permitting this?

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 11, 2021

        Interesting you use the word “lies”.MiC

        It was a word often used in Communist dictatorships to denounce and de-platform those the Party thought had unsuitable opinions.

        That was the first stage before the show trial and before they were carted off to the gulags for re-education.

        Reply
    3. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      Peter, Student unions in the in the 1970s had a routine policy of “No platform for fascists” – with the student union defining anyone to the right of Labour as “fascist”. Unfortunately it is those marxist bigots who ran the student unions at that time who took the long march through the establishment.

      Reply
      1. Alan Jutson
        June 10, 2021

        +1

        Reply
      2. Peter
        June 10, 2021

        NickC

        Not true.

        I remember Patrick Wall, a Conservative Monday Club member, spoke at various universities in the 1970s.

        Reply
        1. NickC
          June 11, 2021

          Peter, But he was the guest of the universities. And it was not the universities themselves (at that time) who engaged in de-platforming.

          Reply
      3. Lar
        June 10, 2021

        I remember a time further back the 1950’s 60’s people did not know the term fasciest. What we had was a huge protocol in the ports airports where the customs at every turn tore everything apart – as individuals we had to carry with us all of our old
        receipts for everything we brought abroad and now through brexit we have brought it all back again

        Reply
    4. Ed M
      June 10, 2021

      ‘A majority of students may well have disliked President Trump and disapproved of some of his views, but they should be willing to hear the case of the supporters of someone who commanded millions of votes in the world’s most powerful democracy.’

      – Sir John, that’s a fallacious argument. Crowds of people can be both foolish and wise at different times. Millions of Brits were wise to follow Churchill during WW2, but millions of Germans were foolish to follow Hitler during WW. Trump isn’t a Hitler – but he’s no Churchill either. The guy is a nutter when it comes to politics. There are lots of other Republicans who would make a much better President than Trump who inherited his wealth and has just basically invested it in property. Millions of people could do that. Trump is bad news for Western Civilisation.

      Reply
      1. Andy
        June 11, 2021

        President Trump is not ‘bad news for Western Civilisation’: what is bad news is the irrational hatred of him by many and the idea that forcing him out of office by whatever means was right. The ‘end’ does not always justify the means and this was demonstrated in how so many perverted the US Constitution and the Law to harass the man. The same was amply demonstrated here in the Brexit aftermath where proper observance of the Law and our Constitution was set at nought by many who ought to have known better. It was a disgrace.

        Reply
        1. Ed M
          June 12, 2021

          I don’t hate the man Trump. But the guy was just a DIVISIVE provocateur. And not nearly as smart as he made out (without his father’s / grandmother’s fortune which they made and he inherited, we wouldn’t have heard of the man). Lots of Republicans would make better President than Trump.

          Reply
    5. rose
      June 11, 2021

      I remember a bad time in the eighties when the Socialist Workers Party laid on riots regularly in universities to stop people speaking. There was very little condemnation of it and the media tended to take the side of the SWP, always passing it off as “students” and the victims as “controversial”, or the usual defamatory adjectives we still hear today.

      Reply
      1. jerry
        June 11, 2021

        @rose; Except it was more often than not the NF who where disrupting those lawful gatherings., hence why the MSM would side with the students, the SWP and others after the inevitable violence broke out that effectively “de-platformed” whoever was booked to speak. The SWP might have otherwise heckled but that is not “de-platforming”.

        Reply
  2. Mark B
    June 10, 2021

    Good morning.

    Democracy thrives on lively exchanges of varied viewpoints . . .

    But how can it when government and parliament wave through evermore draconian laws designed to do exactly the opposite of what you describe, Sir John.

    Off topic.

    I read today that a well known MP and Minister may well have broken the law, If this is indeed the case, would it too much to expect said individual to resign both his position and seat ?

    Reply
    1. formula57
      June 10, 2021

      @ Mark B off topic – yes, much too much. This is not the 1980’s grand-dad!

      Reply
      1. MFD
        June 10, 2021

        Yes, Formula57 , there are a lot of morons attending uni brainwashing these days

        Reply
    2. jerry
      June 10, 2021

      @Mark B off topic; Yes, and once due process has been gone through, if the person is found guilty then s/he will either automatically be debarred (from office and/or parliament), and if not, and they do not resign, there is a very strong likelihood they will face a recall petition.

      One of the most annoying trends these days is how so many can not separate accusation and guilt, often simply on the unchallenged say-so of others, I have no idea who Mark is even referring to, I guess the MSM has made allegations?

      Reply
    3. None of the Above
      June 10, 2021

      If your thinking of the judgement in the High Court, I don’t accept that it is a resigning matter.
      Reading the whole judgement is more helpful than just the headline grabbing bits.
      This can be summarised by recognising that the Minister’s decision was technically unlawful but mitigated by the urgency of the situation, eg. given what was at stake and the very short time available the Minister was entitled to choose a resource which was most likely to produce what was needed. The same principal that would have applied in selecting manufacturers/suppliers of PPE.

      Reply
    4. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      Mark B, Facebook (and other tech giant censors), not just the government (and its “nudge” units). We’ve now been given permission to discuss the possibility that covid19 originated at a Wuhan research laboratory. How embarrassing for social media, the MSM, and the nudge units to have to admit this possibility. But not half as embarrassing as the assumption of omniscience in banning such debate in the first place.

      Reply
      1. jerry
        June 10, 2021

        @NickC; The problem is not admitting to the possibility that the CV19 virus “originated at a Wuhan research laboratory” (by which I hope you mean escaped accidentally [1]), that has never been deigned by anyone, not even the Chinese govt), but how some want to PRE-JUDGE the investigation and when no evidence is found to theri liking they then question the validity of the independent investigation.

        [1] China had nothing to gain from such a deliberate act, but much to loose. If we are talking conspiracy theories then my money is on N.Korea or perhaps rouge anti China elements within the USA at the time

        Reply
        1. NickC
          June 11, 2021

          No matter what convolutions you entertain, Jerry, social media (particularly Facebook) actually banned (de-platformed) anyone from disseminating the possibility of covid19 originating in a Wuhan laboratory. That censorship is the problem.

          Reply
          1. jerry
            June 11, 2021

            @NickC; Thanks, I’ll take your word for that, give I have zilch to do with Facebook, assuming you mean such people were simply suggesting the possibility and not pre-judging the matter.

            But that said, you have illustrated my point about how some have learnt from the corporate/right-wing how de-platforming can be used to silence unwelcome criticisms.

    5. rose
      June 11, 2021

      As I understand it, unlawful is not the same as breaking the law. It seems to be a wheeze of contemporary judges to put HMG in the wrong when they aren’t. Haleism, you might call it.

      Reply
    6. MiC
      June 11, 2021

      There’s no “may well have” about it.

      The Court has ruled. He DID break the law.

      As for John’s point, that particular association of students is a private entity. What pictures they might vote to have on walls is no more anyone else’s business than is, say, a golf club voting on what hours its bar should be open.

      It would rightly be seen as preposterous if the gutter press tried to enrage the country on some aspect of the latter case, and should equally be seen as such in the former.

      Reply
  3. agricola
    June 10, 2021

    Intolerance of the views of others is an aspect of growing up. Were we to have accurate recall of some of our own views from our formative years we might be less than impressed. Such views can only be damaging when carried into later years unchallenged by experience or logic.

    Reply
  4. Peter
    June 10, 2021

    Cecil Rhodes must be turning in his grave. All the money he pumped into universities and student scholarships he provided and now they want to pull down his statue.

    Meanwhile China funds universities in The West and there is not even a murmur of protest. China will even open a brand new university in Budapest. It is surprising Orban sanctions this. He should see how China operates elsewhere. He who sips with the devil should use a long spoon.

    Benefactors will now probably adjust their wills so that funding can be withdrawn from ungrateful recipients.

    Reply
    1. SM
      June 10, 2021

      Mr Orban demonstrates that labelling individuals as far-Right or far-Left etc is inaccurate, to say the least. He is a politician who obviously believes in taking a very authoritarian stance, and would therefore have little trouble working with the Chinese State.

      Reply
    2. jerry
      June 10, 2021

      @Peter; “now they want to pull down his statue”

      Do we know for sure Cecil Rhodes would be so vain?

      Reply
      1. agricola
        June 10, 2021

        It is nothing to do with whether he was vain or not. Statues are normally a mark of respect from the persons contemporaries. What others of different generations think or judge it, by their totally different criteria, is an irrelevance. They need to learn to live with their history or that of their hosts.

        Reply
      2. Peter2
        June 10, 2021

        I don’t think that is the correct word…”vain”.
        I do think he would be saddened and probably rather miffed because he gave his money to Oxford University to help students afford to study there.

        Reply
      3. Peter
        June 10, 2021

        It’s not vanity.

        If you have a memorial, gravestone or statue and have contributed very generously to institutions it is certainly not vanity if you do not wish your stonework to be destroyed.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 11, 2021

          @Peter; @agricola; Of course a statue (or portrait) is vanity, hence why despots and dictators quite literally plaster every possible building, inside and out, with their image whilst more moderate leaders and monarchs don’t!

          To those who matter, for those who want/need to know, Cecil Rhodes will always be connected with Magdalen College Oxford, statue or no statue, which is why the current protests are utterly futile and thus simplistic tokenism.

          Reply Cecil Rhodes is at Oriel!

          Reply
          1. jerry
            June 11, 2021

            @JR reply; My apologies to all, but my point stands! 😳

    3. Alan Jutson
      June 10, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    4. Ian Wragg
      June 10, 2021

      Orban will do it just to spite the EU. I see Biden is interfering in uk politics, why don’t we to him how to behave with Canada.
      It looks like Poots is the only one talking dense.
      The protocol must go.

      Reply
    5. Mitchel
      June 10, 2021

      Orban sanctions it because he is on board with the Sino-Russian Eurasia Project.Hungary lies at the western end of the vast Eurasian plain that stretches through Russia to the Pacific coast of what used to be called Manchuria(now China’s three Northern Provinces).These lands are in alignment for the first time since the peak of the Mongol empire which has enormous trade and geopolitical consequences for the future.

      Reply
  5. formula57
    June 10, 2021

    I agree that ” It is most important our universities themselves are strictly independent of political opinion or intellectual bias” – and when they are not, at least deprive them of public funds.

    Now is a good moment to remove the generous public funding granted to Oxford that meets the costs of its tutorial system (one not considered to necessary by most of its competitors), given reports that 150 academics are refusing to tutor Oriel students because their college (with or without their consent) displays Rhodes’s statue.

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      June 10, 2021

      I am greatly in favour of the tutorial system and would extend it. But just saved by culling soft loans for degrees other than ones in sensible subject, for people with at least BBB at A level min. Others can resit, pay for themselves, learn in their spare time or get a more useful vocational skill.

      A Heath today – “The imperial EU is blind to the folly of its unequal Northern Ireland protocol
      The treaty isn’t a just law. It was imposed on the UK by Brussels at the moment of our greatest weakness”
      Indeed spot on. This a weakness created by the dire Cameron, May, Hammond, the Ben Act Traitors, the fixed term act, the remoaners, SNP, libdems, Labour, the face Tory wets and the appalling speaker John Bercow. They are largely to blame for this mess. Boris should just have left with no treaty as JR correctly advised at the time.

      Reply
      1. MiC
        June 11, 2021

        The NIP belongs equally to both sides. It was negotiated and agreed, not imposed by one on the other.

        The victimhood bleating is literally pathetic.

        Yes, of course the UK is in a weak position. You and seventeen million others voted precisely to put it there.

        Own it, for goodness’ sake.

        Reply
    2. hefner
      June 10, 2021

      Wrong, the 150 only refuse to take part in outreach work and admission interviews on Oriel’s behalf. Not the same thing.

      Reply
      1. NickC
        June 10, 2021

        So that’s alright then, Hefner?

        Reply
        1. hefner
          June 10, 2021

          Simply pointing out that the information over which most of you are foaming is not correct. The 150 still do their tutoring contrary to what some here are claiming.
          Are you so flexible with facts that provided it serves ‘your cause’ you are ready to twist them, is that so, NickC?

          Reply
  6. Michael Wilson
    June 10, 2021

    Well, if one is allowed to express one’s views, I think the monarchy is an outdated and undemocratic institution.

    1) The idea that the accident of your birth – who your parents happen to be – makes you different from other people is absurd.

    2) The wealth of the monarchy, and the aristocracy the system supports, is based on land. And that land was stolen and taken by force.

    3) The idea that if the monarchy was abandoned we would have to have ‘President Blair’ is ridiculous. We have a leader of the country – our Prime Minister. If leaders of other countries visit, surely one leader should meet another.

    4) Listening to the media go on about Prince this, Princess that, the Duke of Nowhere etc. makes me feel this country is infantile and that I live in a Shrek film.

    5) The role the monarchy plays in our constitution is completely unnecessary and the fact that laws are written so they do not affect the ‘royal family’ is offensive to democracy.

    6) Time to retire them all and let Buck House be as big a tourist attraction as the Palace of Versailles.

    Cue the howls of outrage.

    Reply
    1. agricola
      June 10, 2021

      Not a howl of outrage Michael, just a different viewpoint. Our current monarch has established a standard it will be hard to follow and therin lies a weakness. You advocate no head of state beyond the PM, however a majority might not agree and you end up with a political greaseball. Name not proffered in deference to Ed. We are well aware of the history of royal wealth and income but that is under ultimate democratic control these days. It isn’t yet in the hands of the National Trust but is slowly moving to greater access.

      As an institution or business I think it is in the black, but accept that even the best accountants would be pushsd to measure it, there being too many unquantifiable factors. How do you measure prestige, you only can when you havn’t got it. Macrons france for instance or anybodies france for that matter. Only in the eyes of the incumbent.

      I come down in favour of our monarchy but accept that future generations could blow it. At this point I would thank her for holding it all together.

      Reply
      1. Fedupsoutherner
        June 10, 2021

        Great post Agricola

        Reply
    2. Narrow Shoulders
      June 10, 2021

      I would rather someone born to the above than someone who spent money campaigning to have the trapping sand power.

      We will be subjugated whoever is the figurehead so give me a largely powerless, ceremonial one born to the role over someone who wants it.

      Reply
    3. SM
      June 10, 2021

      On the other hand, Mike, the UK set-up regarding State and Government allows you to post your disagreement on a public site for all the world to read, and you presumably trust our host to keep your contact details completely confidential.

      There are plenty of other more ‘modern’ nations across the world where you would, at the least, lose your liberty for such views, in the unlikely event that such sites as these would even be permitted.

      Reply
      1. Mike Wilson
        June 10, 2021

        @SM

        Difficult to discern your argument. Because it is okay to criticise the monarchy, therefore having a monarch must be okay – given that in dictatorships it would not be allowed. I am very happy to live in a country where dissent is allowed. But surely that has more to do with our history than anything else.

        I am not advocating revolution. I just think it is an outdated institution. The fawning attitude of many really grates.

        Reply
    4. MFD
      June 10, 2021

      No lad, just difference of opinion, equally as valid.

      Reply
    5. Lifelogic
      June 10, 2021

      Fair enough to think that if you want to, but would you really rather have Blair, Kinnock, Kahn, T May or some other dire politician as head of State? Far better to have someone who stays out of politics, is not divisive and widely admired.

      Rather a shame Prince Charles has taken political positions and hypocritical and totally idiotic ones too. Still he does run his Aston Martin on a surplus of wine, cheese by-product, and a little whey thrown into the mix. He claims it runs better than ever and “smells delicious as you’re driving along.”. Doubtless the process costs a fortune & produces far more green house gasses than just using petrol. But B/S virtue signalling is all it seems.

      Reply
      1. Lifelogic
        June 10, 2021

        Indeed, I am a supporter of the Queen though not that keen on having pictures of her or flags all over the place. Clearly these people can choose their own pictures and decor for their Middle Common Room but they should not have made such a political issue of it, as they surely fully intended to.

        Reply
      2. Mike Wilson
        June 10, 2021

        @Lifelogic

        Again, the presumption that if we don’t have a monarch, we have to have Blair. If we had a President, would his or her firstborn get the job next?

        Reply
    6. Know-Dice
      June 10, 2021

      Hmm…
      A Prime Minister voted for by 25,351 out of 70,369 registered voters for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, or 25,351 out of 47 million Parliamentary electoral registrations.

      I’m not a royalist but I believe her Majesty gives stability in an unstable world….

      Reply
    7. acorn
      June 10, 2021

      When you hear politicians banging on about our fantasy democracy, you should worry. Behind the scenes you can bet that some bit of your democracy just got extinguished.

      Some 14 men will have been popularly elected to be Head of State, President of the United States. During that time the UK has had one unelected monarch as its Head of State. The latter exercising no operational executive control over our Head of Government – not popularly elected – who also controls the business of the Legislature.

      The US Congress has 525 all elected members. The UK Parliament has 1458 members, only 650 elected; even the EU does better than that with direct and indirect elections!

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 10, 2021

        The two roles are completely different acorn and cannot properly be compared.
        The President has huge powers over armed forces and law making.
        The Queen has no such real powers

        Reply
    8. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      And your strictures are not “howls of outrage”? It is a plain fact of life that the accident of birth and who your parents happen to be makes you different from other people.

      What about promoting patriotism, the traditional family, and the correct use of the English language? How about cancelling the cancel culture, defending the native culture of the English, and removing political correctness and cultural marxism from the country?

      Cue howls of outrage.

      Reply
      1. M Davis
        June 10, 2021

        Agree 100%

        Reply
    9. MWB
      June 10, 2021

      I agree 100%.

      Reply
    10. Peter Wood
      June 10, 2021

      You are correct on every point, BUT what is your better alternative? Look at republics around the world with elected heads of state, untrustworthy, snake-oil selling politicians. We have enough of those in the HoC.

      I would point out that our monarchy, for all its failings, occasionally rises to the moment. Had George VI and family left England in the early part of 1939/40, as recommended by politicians, the effect on national morale would have been existential, most likely resulting in a very different outcome.

      Monarchy is, one hopes, the last resort of our Nation when politicians fail us. Our present Queen knows this, I cannot say the same for her offspring.

      Reply
  7. Shirley M
    June 10, 2021

    I recently re-read Orwell’s 1984. I see it happening here, in a so-called democracy. People being fired or hounded into safe houses for having the ‘wrong’ views, even if they were respectful or truthful. When the noisy minority are appeased (which always seems to be the result) you give them more power to demand more and more which generally means excluding (or destroying) those who do not have the same beliefs, be it science, religion, or anything else.

    Welcome to 1984.

    Reply
    1. agricola
      June 10, 2021

      Spot on Shirley +++

      Reply
    2. jerry
      June 10, 2021

      @Shirley M; “Orwell’s 1984. I see it happening here”

      Orwell’s 1984 arrived in 1984, if not before (see my reply to @peter way up top)! Nothing like fake outrage though, I suspect, where were you in the 1980s when mere mention or depiction of some issues (within an otherwise legal method of communication) were banned by law simply because of the message or image being shared. Far to many want to ban whatever it is they personally do not want to hear or see but want their rights to say, and be seen, 24ct gold plated…

      Reply
      1. NickC
        June 10, 2021

        Orwell’s 1984 arrived in 1984, Jerry? What on earth are you talking about? The only de-platforming that went on back then was far left students no-platforming anyone not as hard left as they were.

        Reply
    3. SecretPeople
      June 10, 2021

      The US too, as referred to in the blog post, has been reduced to ‘a so-called democracy’.

      Reply
  8. SM
    June 10, 2021

    I completely agree with your post today, Sir John.

    Reply
  9. Sea_Warrior
    June 10, 2021

    I have a problem with foreigners, here as guests, ‘dissing’ the Queen, this country, our history and our values. I would have no problem if Priti Patel would deport more of them.
    I have one ongoing business link with Cambridge; any silliness from that august body and I will be taking my business elsewhere, and telling them why I am doing so.

    Reply
    1. agricola
      June 10, 2021

      So all the punts could fall into Chinese ownership, very sad.

      Reply
    2. jerry
      June 10, 2021

      @S_W; Some of those foreigners you object to also have the Queen as their Head of State, or have olo9ng standing links to the old Empire, and even if they do not, casting such people into ‘exile’ will not silence them in the age of the internet, in fact your solution would likely give such people an even higher profile here in the UK – perhaps you also favour the Chinese style solution, a Great (firewall of) Britain, to filter such descent?

      Reply
    3. a-tracy
      June 10, 2021

      Sea Warrior – let’s keep this overblown issue to what it is a provocation by a young wealthy American who managed to get 10 of his chums out of 250 members of this common room to support his intention to remove it. This (man ed)went to school with Obama’s daughter a college heavy with democrat graduates. He claimed the Queen represents ‘recent colonial history’ well that is our history and he is a visitor, if he feels uncomfortable about our Queen then why come here? One of the other students there said the majority of the other students had read the agenda, hadn’t realised what he was up to and were ashamed of the attention he has brought to their college.

      Reply
      1. a-tracy
        June 10, 2021

        * the majority of the other students ‘hadn’t’ read the agenda and also didn’t attend meetings.

        Reply
    4. Sea_Warrior
      June 10, 2021

      And no sooner do I type this than I see that Churchill College, Cambridge is being threatened by silliness.

      Reply
  10. Dave Andrews
    June 10, 2021

    I read the motion to remove the photograph of the Queen was led by an American, because her image represented the dark side of colonialism.
    Perhaps he should return to the US and campaign to right injustice in his own country? Like giving back stolen land to the North American tribes.

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      June 10, 2021

      Chip on the shoulder Art, Law and Politics graduates etc. have to do something with all their spare time I suppose.

      Reply
    2. Fedupsoutherner
      June 10, 2021

      Dave. +1. Add to that Australia and Canada.

      Reply
    3. jerry
      June 10, 2021

      @Dave Andrews; Duh?!… Much of the land stolen from the North American tribes was stolen by the British or our then citizens who had emigrated to the ‘new land’.

      Reply
      1. NickC
        June 10, 2021

        Jerry, Duh??! The “British” ceased to have responsibility in 1776. You need to have a word with the Americans, the Spanish and the French.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 11, 2021

          @NickC; Your point being what, considering by 1776 great swaths of the native North American’s land had (or were being) been stolen from them, if that wasn’t the case there would have been no American Revolution and the 4th July would not be celebrated as Independence Day (from Great Britain), our Union Jack would not have been replaced by the Stars representing the states.

          Reply
    4. MiC
      June 10, 2021

      How about giving back the land stolen from the Anglo-Saxon tribes in this country? Or to the Celts for that matter?

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 10, 2021

        MiC
        Should we go back even further to the very first humans that ever lived in the UK.
        Don’t they own it?

        Reply
    5. Alan Jutson
      June 10, 2021

      Indeed History is exactly that, and the recording of that should remain factual and in the Public domain, how else are we ever going to properly and sensibly educate people and perhaps avoid any perceived mistakes of the past.
      Once you start to mess with history, you mess up the reasoning for the present position.

      Reply
    6. The Prangwizard
      June 10, 2021

      I wholly agree. The outrages against the ‘Indians’ are not receiving the attention they ought to get. And if Biden criticises us for anything he must be told to put his own house in order first.

      Reply
  11. Pat
    June 10, 2021

    Good morning Sir John,

    A degree is the minimum requirement for employment today and it is often necessary for students not only to incur very substantial debt to be granted that degree, they must also display the approved attitude.

    Why have we allowed the extreme left to so ruthlessly exploit their power over young people as gatekeepers to a career?

    We most urgently need alternative routes to recognised qualification and genuine diversity of tertiary education, and by this I don’t mean the Open University.

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      June 10, 2021

      “A degree is the minimum requirement for employment today”

      No, no, no an ability to do the job or to learn how to do they job fairly quickly is all that is needed. Most university degrees circa 75% of them are worth little or nothing other than in a few protected professions.

      Universities do not make dim people any cleverer, often the reverse it seems. We need more hands on skills. 60% of graduates earn less than the average wage 5 years after graduation.

      Reply
    2. MiC
      June 10, 2021

      You are saying that employers have too much arbitrary power over employees. I agree fully, and it is Tory employment “law” exactly which gives them this power.

      It is absolutely nothing to do with the Left.

      Reply
      1. NickC
        June 10, 2021

        It’s almost as though Labour has never been in power, eh, Martin?

        Reply
      2. Peter2
        June 10, 2021

        No it isn’t anything to do with “Tory law” MiC

        It is a basic freedom to choose who you want to employ for the job that is on offer.

        You interview and choose the best candidate for the job.
        There is a huge amount of legislation involved in this process.

        Reply
    3. agricola
      June 10, 2021

      When my eldest son studied mechanical engineering he had around 22 disciplines within engineering to get his head round. He told me that at his university the engineers and the medics were the only ones doing any sustained work.
      How about an engineering university created, financed, and tutured by the engineering companies of the UK. Tax deductable naturally. That way we get a stream of young engineers, unencumbered by debt. Medical students already have the direct attachment to their profession via teaching hospitals, they just need the debt removing.

      The PPEs and others can be left with the cost of their left wing education. I read that plod will be required to have a degree. What they desperately need is a degree in life before they are let anywhere near policing others.

      Reply
  12. oldtimer
    June 10, 2021

    I read that some 150 Oxford dons are refusing to provide tutorials to students of Oriel college. If so they surely are in breach of their contracts of employment. Unless they resume their provision of tutorial services to students these contracts should be terminated forthwith and they should look for work elsewhere. As for Magdalen college students, their lack of respect for someone who has offered a lifetime of service to this country is beyond contemptible. Perhaps they too should seek to find their education under regimes more attuned to their way of thinking.

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      June 10, 2021

      Sound like an excellent way to kick out these lecturers and replace with better ones.

      Reply
    2. a-tracy
      June 10, 2021

      oldtimer it is only 10 out of 250 postgrads of that college. The leader of the group is a rich American.

      Reply
    3. glen cullen
      June 10, 2021

      Every academic and student knew at the start of their career in Oxford that it has historical monuments, the professors where happy to receive £100k salary and the students a prestige degree…crying sour milk

      Reply
    4. mancunius
      June 10, 2021

      It certainly looks like a no-brainer for a class action by students. Perhaps the President of Magdalen can represent them in their attempt to sue for their rights. She is a human rights lawyer, after all. 🙂

      Reply
  13. Garland
    June 10, 2021

    A group of students had a vote, and implemented the outcome. Entirely their choice. Anyone who has a problem with that is an opponent of both democracy and freedom.

    Reply
    1. Peter2
      June 10, 2021

      Garland
      The right to protest and speak out against that decision is also a freedom derived from democracy.

      Reply
    2. None of the Above
      June 10, 2021

      Bravely written!
      If you voted leave in 2016 I have sympathy with your sentiment but I am bound to ask that if you voted to remain, did you graciously accept the result?

      Reply
    3. a-tracy
      June 10, 2021

      Garland, 17 students voted out of 250 that can use that common room. 10 voted in favour, 5 abstained and 2 opposed. Let’s keep it in perspective.

      Britain does now seem a place where we now allow foreigners to do this sort of thing and take over our institutions, culture, whilst the majority just look on and shake their heads but do nothing about it.

      Reply
      1. Alan Jutson
        June 10, 2021

        The very simple solution is to put the motion forward again and have another vote, used to happen all the time at union meetings decades ago.

        Eventually you reach a point of having a proper discussion where the majority actually vote, not just a handful.

        Reply
    4. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      I didn’t notice you saying the same thing about our vote to Leave the EU empire, Garland?

      Reply
    5. MiC
      June 10, 2021

      Exact.

      Reply
    6. X-Tory
      June 10, 2021

      The proposer of the motion was/is NOT British.

      Foreigners have NO right to ANY say in how this country is run – ether on a macro or even micro scale. If they are not happy in any way they are welcome to leave.

      Imagine how you would feel if I came round to your house and started to try to change your furniture and redecorate your rooms.

      Reply
  14. Andy
    June 10, 2021

    The MCR didn’t decide to make this a
    political issue at all. It had a vote about removing a photo – and then removed it. That should be that.

    What turned it into a political issue was
    the involvement of the usual suspects – presumably after they were tipped off by one of their mob. These are the “outraged brigade” who literally take offence at everything – whilst, without irony, mistakenly accusing everyone else of taking offence at everything.

    The outraged brigade are a predictable bunch. The Daily Mail. Faragists. Brexitists. Newspaper columnists. Right wing radio hosts. Etc etc etc.

    The outraged brigade get irrationally angry at all sorts of irrational things. Men dressed as women. Sportspeople kneeling. Same sex couples. Teenage environmentalists. People in dinghies. Boris’ Northern Ireland sausage ban.

    Why does this stuff bother so many of you? Get over it. Go about your own business and your own lives as you see fit – and let others go about theirs as they see fit.

    PS: what are the students going to put in the Queen’s place? How about a photo of Greta?

    Reply
    1. Old Albion
      June 10, 2021

      If only that were a joke !

      Reply
    2. Richard1
      June 10, 2021

      Great idea that’s just what we need in good time for the next election – shrieky leftists running around taking down pictures of the Queen and putting up photos of other shrieky leftists like Greta T, XR activists – what about the photo of Starmer and Rayner ‘taking the knee’? We’ll be bringing that one out again when the time comes. Bad luck.

      Reply
    3. Cliff. Wokingham
      June 10, 2021

      Andy
      As I recall, they already have a dart board.

      Reply
    4. beresford
      June 10, 2021

      Andy, I hope you will join us in condemning the ‘outraged brigade’ of Oxford University, who are threatening to ostracise the students of Oriel College for refusing to remove an inconspicuous statue of their benefactor. Why can’t these prima donnas just get on with their own lives?

      Reply
    5. Fedupsoutherner
      June 10, 2021

      Andy, as you see yourself as such an expert on everything and worthy of a grand position in a university perhaps they would like a photo of you? Send them one to debate over.

      Reply
    6. jerry
      June 10, 2021

      @Andy; I would suggest, if the students want to both steer clear of making political statements (as you appear to be claiming) and want to invoke a sense of care for the natural world they hang a picture by Turner or Monet, rather than the portrait of someone who seems to be working through (self acknowledged) personal health issues by way of political activism.

      Reply
    7. a-tracy
      June 10, 2021

      Andy, I think Spongebob Squarepants is more to their taste we were told it was one of Obama’s favourites.

      Reply
    8. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      Your comments are one long howl of irrational anguish about our leaving your corrupt undemocratic EU empire, Andy. You take offence all the time, as you demonstrate here. You are rather selective in your support for democratic votes.

      Your anger leads you to make false statements about “17.4 million angry Tory pensioners”, and “55,000 extra penpushers”, and similar sundry lies. Why do you hate truth so much? And why do you hate our traditional culture so much?

      If you want to idolise a bureaucracy, dress as a woman and pretend you can give birth (if you’re biologically male), kneel before a teenage environmentalist, think that a low powered toaster will drive your electric car, be my guest. But I suspect much of your desperate anger stems from reality hitting the cultural marxism you absorbed unthinkingly as a teenager.

      Reply
    9. Glenn Vaughan
      June 10, 2021

      Andy

      What an excellent suggestion to hang a photo of Greta in place of HM The Queen. You can then have a teenage brat viewed and admired daily by a collection of fellow adolescent brats!

      Reply
    10. mancunius
      June 10, 2021

      Andy, they are young students, who are simply abusing the hospitality of an Oxford college in an act of projection and impotent rage at their lack of any real power over their temporary surroundings.
      I’m sure others here can cast their minds back to similarly mirthmaking Oxbridge graduate student mind-sets – their embarrasment at coming from wealthy neo-colonial political families in the third world, and their desire à tout prix not to be identified with them. I sense – mutatis mutandis – a similar pattern in your own perennial peeves. It is always the most ferociously revolutionary radical hothead who is suddenly revealed to be the son of his country’s Minister for Oil.
      Their young, unformed minds will flit tomorrow to some other projected social grievance. As will yours.

      Reply
    11. Peter
      June 10, 2021

      But Garbo wanted to be alone – oppression at its worst!

      Reply
      1. Peter
        June 10, 2021

        Definitely not written by me.

        Peter (who usually posts with a capital ‘C’).

        Reply
        1. Peter
          June 10, 2021

          ‘P’ not ‘C’.

          Reply
    12. Peter2
      June 10, 2021

      So andy now you back a small majority.
      Hilarious as usual.

      Reply
    13. jon livesey
      June 10, 2021

      ” It had a vote about removing a photo – and then removed it. That should be that.”

      What a brilliant quote. Let’s see, now: “The UK had a vote about leaving the EU, and left, and that should be that.”

      You really are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you, if you posted that quote without realising that it applies to you even more aptly than to the people you are targetting.

      Reply
  15. Everhopeful
    June 10, 2021

    Well someone must be very happy with the situation since nothing is done about it and it gets worse by the day.
    A bit like the dinghies in Dover really.
    It suits!

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 10, 2021

      Consent by inaction

      Reply
  16. Old Albion
    June 10, 2021

    Universities, teaching ‘woke’ to the gullible…………….

    Reply
  17. Everhopeful
    June 10, 2021

    So Mr J at this stupid summit thing wants to teach the world to sing does he?
    He wants to show the world “our values” of openness, freedom, democracy!!
    How’s he going to do that since he obviously has no clue about any of those things?
    And what’s it to do with him whether girls in other countries go to school? No education policy in this country has ever worked out well. Especially his of closing down schools.

    Reply
  18. David Brown
    June 10, 2021

    Usually I speed read through your topic of the day and message with my own off beat thoughts. Well I am a designer at heart so my thought processes are not conventional otherwise my Architectural designs would be quite boring
    Anyway today I read your topic x2 and I find myself in agreement with your thoughts- well may be not everything but most of what you have written
    I almost gave you marks out of 10 but that would be sarcastic and unnecessary

    Reply
    1. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      David Brown said: “my thought processes are not conventional otherwise my Architectural designs would be quite boring”.

      God save me from Architects who put unconventionality above good design. Actually it is being un”conventional” which is boring (and mundane) nowadays. And praising yourself for “off beat thoughts” is priceless!

      Reply
      1. David Brown
        June 10, 2021

        Your reply put a big smile on my face

        Reply
  19. Richard1
    June 10, 2021

    Universities found to permit no platforming, suppression of free speech, or kowtowing to the Chinese communist party by allowing bullying of their dissident Chinese students and suppression of debate on issues like HK, Tibet, the Uighur genocide , Tiananmen sq massacre etc need to be de-funded.

    It’s increasingly questionable whether taxpayers should be funding anything other than STEM, especially post-graduate. Taxpayers should not be required to cough up to fund the lifestyles of these militant leftwing radicals who probably aren’t doing much useful anyway.

    Reply
    1. Richard1
      June 10, 2021

      Forgot – Taiwan and the cause of the Wuhan virus. Other key issues where academia is showing cowardice and leftist bias.

      Reply
  20. bigneil - newer comp
    June 10, 2021

    More boats – more people – more bills for working class whitey. Less hospital/doctor time for us as they use translators – while WE have to contimue to pay for their whole lives here. And PP still gets paid for eaying her lies of stopping it.
    Disgusting – you all show NO respect for the people you tax.

    Reply
  21. Bryan Harris
    June 10, 2021

    It’s hard to isolate the events mentioned above within universities from the general malaise that is rampant throughout our country.

    What is it exactly?

    A large part of it is to do with herd mentality, but mis-education, extreme liberalism, and far too much socialist doctrine are at the roots of what is wrong with our country today.

    Politically correct socialist techniques were allowed to flourish, encouraged by certain political entities, the rest followed on easily enough. WE shouldn’t forget to thank MSM for impinging these new ways of thought upon us though, their indoctrination was crucial in our demise.

    How to get ourselves out of this self created trap?
    Let’s start by making education about making people smarter instead of filling their minds with dogma.
    Let’s address the balance of rationality by real debate rather than have alternative views shouted down.
    The BBC badly needs a new contract with the British people, if it is going to be allowed to continue. as a broadcaster.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 10, 2021

      We need cabinet ministers to openly challenge the media view and the minority woke community on TV – What happened to integrity, courage and principal

      Reply
      1. Bryan Harris
        June 11, 2021

        +10

        Reply
    2. jon livesey
      June 10, 2021

      If the sensible mainstream could only express their concerns as calmly and rationally as you have here, we could make some real progress.

      Reply
      1. Bryan Harris
        June 11, 2021

        +10

        Reply
    3. Narrow Shoulders
      June 10, 2021

      I disagree @bryan. The vast majority of problems such as this stem from the sense of entitlement not herd mentality.

      Many people these days need to hear “No”. It would greatly improve our lives.

      Reply
      1. Bryan Harris
        June 11, 2021

        Your point has merit, and certainly plays a part in all of this @Narrow Shoulders, but the things I mention are more fundamental and would/should correct the issue you note.

        Reply
  22. nota#
    June 10, 2021

    Debate as with science should always be open to discussion. Its when we get to position as now that if you don’t like something you get it cancelled or that the views of one sector of humanity ‘cant’ be challenged. That is an unhealthy situation.

    There are many things in our shared histories that would never be repeated in todays world, seeing as none of us were around at the time there should be no blame game on what our or someone else’s ancestors may or may have not done. Context is not considered by the instigators of these trends. Suppression of history is neve an answer to understanding the future.

    These events should be just seen as what they are and that is our evolution.

    I am amazed our Parliament has created such a thing as a ‘hate’ crime, then allowing it to be as loose as it is. Challenging isn’t hate. I am amazed our Parliament allows the concept that if someone uses Social Media, they are quite naturally expressing a view – otherwise why use it and then if someone challenges that view they are committing a crime(sometimes called trolling). That’s nonsense even the most extreme views should be out in the open, open to challenge not suppression, not driven underground to fester. We are arriving at the situation that to say you could ‘murder a cup of tea’ you would get locked up. Parliament, the Law makers as trendy, on message and at times as well meaning as they may be, are the cause the erosion of common sense and free speech

    It’s our Parliament that is at fault, they have created through bad laws a situation where a challenge to a belief has become an outrage, a crime. It is our Parliament though seemingly well meaning in a single isolated(kneejerk) moment then goes on to attack freedoms, free speech, and a people as a whole. As a result the Government uses the laws to becomes controlling for its own ego and personal benefit. It is the attitude of those that find themselves in the HoC that is the cause of most of societies ills – as they don’t defend democracy, freedoms and reinterpreted personal responsibility

    That is not a Free Society or Democracy. Our Parliament has taken to mimicking the EU Commission, a trading body that has more power than Governments, a power without democratic oversight or responsibility – it can only end in tears.

    Reply
    1. Narrow Shoulders
      June 10, 2021

      And the law is now creating a hierarchy with the case today allowing religious views to trump belief in one’s sex.

      We live in interesting times.

      Reply
  23. MFD
    June 10, 2021

    Perhaps Sir, a lot of us do not like living in the gutter that lefties love to revel in!

    Reply
  24. Cliff. Wokingham
    June 10, 2021

    It is strange and indeed worrying, how the idea of being patriotic and loving one’s queen and country has become so frowned upon by so many. Many of us, growing up, celebrated Empire Day where we celebrated being part of the greatest empire the world had ever seen.
    Americans are patriotic and love their country but, they are taught that at school and see their nation’s flag in the classroom. Our children appear to be chastised by their schools about our history and made to feel guilty about being British.

    Our British values, built on Christianity, have served our nation well in the past and I notice that since our nation has, for all intents and purposes, abandoned our Christian faith, so society has fell apart and declined. I fear for today’s young and what their futures will be.

    Reply
    1. Mike Wilson
      June 10, 2021

      Colonising other countries by force is based on Christianity! Who would have thought it!

      Reply
      1. Cliff. Wokingham
        June 11, 2021

        Yes on the face of it Mike there is a juxta position however, when you read through the JudeoChristian scriptures and indeed (other religious ed)texts, you’ll see that taking over lands and teaching their religious values and beliefs to the indigenous population was more than evident.
        The real point I was making was that during my lifetime, we had a good set of moral and ethical beliefs which recently have been thrown out by the left leaning establishment, including today’s so called Conservative Party. As we’ve descended into the modern morality which, as far as I can see, basically says anything from the past is bad and now you can do as you like, so society has declined.

        Reply
  25. glen cullen
    June 10, 2021

    Where did it start – with our own woke government
    A civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office was paid £10,000 compensation because he was offended by having to walk past a portrait of the Queen each day
    In August 2019 Northern Ireland Secretary, Theresa Villiers, who approved a £10,000 compensation payment for “hurt feelings and distress”, the portraits were removed and replaced with photographs of the royals meeting people

    Reply
    1. Shirley M
      June 10, 2021

      I remember that, and I still find it difficult to believe. It is beyond belief.

      Reply
  26. Gordon Bennett
    June 10, 2021

    First they told us not to worry. That it was just a man in tights who had a rather nasty past and that we were being too sensitive (The Colston statue, which has been put in a museum… on its side and covered in paint.) Now we know they want EVERYTHING down. We know from experience that what happens in leading colleges becomes national policy ten years later.

    (The reign of Queen Elizabeth 2 oversaw the freedom of 50 commonwealth countries. You’d think they’d have cut her a bit of slack.)

    Reply
  27. GW
    June 10, 2021

    If culture war on the native of this blessed plot is not actually a war of existence, then what is it? Put another way, what is the existence of a human estate that is utterly artificial, self-estranged and denatured, sans nation, sans kin and kind, but the final equality.

    Reply
  28. Andy
    June 10, 2021

    In today’s edition of “Brexitists moaning about Brexit”, the Telegraph’s Allister Heath writes: “The EU should have enough self-awareness to understand that the deal it obtained was too good to be true.”

    Even by Brexitist standards this is epically dim. Maybe Mr Heath should develop some self -awareness himself. This deal, we were told by Brexitists, was a great deal for Britain. And now they claim it wasn’t.

    Still, the public inquiry will be box-office and the prosecutions will be plentiful.

    Reply
    1. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      Andy, Even you know that remaining in the EU’s single market is exactly – and literally – what Remain, and Remain MPs wanted. Now you can see that Northern Ireland remaining in is a disaster. But will you own it?

      Reply
    2. MiC
      June 10, 2021

      Sadly in this case Andy, people cannot be prosecuted under retrospective new laws.

      It’s a centuries-old convention in enlightened countries and rightly so. A person is entitled to rely on the law as it is at the time.

      Such retrospective laws are the hallmark of tyrants, and the C20th saw plenty.

      And the High Court has ruled that it isn’t even misconduct in a public office for the holder to lie to the public.

      So the cynical will probably generally get away with it, apart from maybe some who get nicked for electoral abuses, if proper investigations are ever allowed to proceed.

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 10, 2021

        The Hign Court did not rule that MiC
        They said it was not their role to decide if political statement were correct or not.

        Reply
        1. MiC
          June 11, 2021

          It absolutely is the court’s job to decide whether statements of any sort are false or not – libel and many other cases depend upon it.

          Let’s hope that the Good Law Project take this further.

          Reply
          1. Peter2
            June 11, 2021

            The Courts correctly decided otherwise in terms of aving to decide on the correctness of political statements.
            That job falls to the Speaker the Opposition and us the voters.

      2. NickC
        June 11, 2021

        No, Martin, the High Court has not ruled that “it isn’t even misconduct in a public office for the holder to lie to the public”.

        Reply
    3. jon livesey
      June 10, 2021

      “The EU should have enough self-awareness to understand that the deal it obtained was too good to be true.”

      But he is dead right, in fact. The EU still has not realised that the deal that they are trumpeting as a formality cannot possibly survive in the real World. The EU still thinks that a member state can leave the EU and yet still be subject to EU Courts and have EU officials on its territory supervising its internal trade.

      And don’t waste your and my time telling me that something like this is what certain words on some piece of paper can be stretched to say. That does not matter when history tells us that legal text only survives in the long run when it is the interests of both side that it should. And the cracks in this deal are showing after only three or four months.

      The NIP is already slipping away from the EU, and a lot more of the WA will follow it. Brexit is only a prelude to a much wider and more permanent separation, and it won’t be limited to the UK.

      Reply
  29. a-tracy
    June 10, 2021

    It is a shame that a Quorum isn’t required for meetings at such a prestigious institution, yes even for common rooms. Quoram “For example, if the House has the total membership of 250, at least 25 members must be present for the House to proceedings with its business. If at any time during a meeting of a House there is no quorum, the Chairman has to either adjourn the House or suspend it until there is a quorum.” Wiki.

    A vote of 250 members would require 25 members to vote they only had 17. In not following any quorum protocol, a few members may become too powerful, and in this case, a foreign member agitating against our monarchy. People will say this is just a play room for privaledged kids why bother about it but we will keep taking a blind eye for too long and the next attack will be something we should have paid attention to like those other 233 members should.

    Reply
    1. Narrow Shoulders
      June 10, 2021

      A-tracy. I suspect a quorum was indeed in attendance. Had the quorum been 25 then the agitator would have made another 8 of his(?) Mates attend.

      The solution is to make all but the most routine administration subject to special resolution requiring 75% approval from those eligible to vote. Unfortunately by doing that you achieve a sclerosis similar to that witnessed within the EU.

      Reply
  30. oldwulf
    June 10, 2021

    I think that the best quote, some might say surprisingly, came from Robert Jenrick:

    “… but I don’t think that we should waste too much time on student union politics”

    BBC News – Queen’s portrait removed after vote by Oxford University students
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-57409743

    Reply
    1. MiC
      June 11, 2021

      No, he can rely on such as the Daily Mail – or the BBC for that matter – to waste the public’s time on such things for him.

      Reply
  31. Mark Thomas
    June 10, 2021

    Sir John,
    I’ve never really understood why university people are so resolutely in favour of the EU project. Perhaps just being at university gives them an innate sense of moral and intellectual superiority. The most vociferous remain campaigners have always given this impression to me.

    Reply
    1. David
      June 10, 2021

      They get a lot of money from the EU.

      Reply
      1. MiC
        June 10, 2021

        Ukip got most of their money from the European Union.

        Your point is?

        Reply
        1. NickC
          June 11, 2021

          No, Martin, UKIP didn’t. UKIP MEPs may have done (for a time), but not UKIP.

          Reply
    2. Andy
      June 10, 2021

      Because they’re educated?

      Conversely I’ve always understood why thick people are so resolutely in favour of Brexit.

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 10, 2021

        Keep going Andy.
        Keep insulting those who voted to leave the EU.
        You need a lot of those 17.2 million voters to vote for opposition parties to get into power.
        They are reading and listening what you lot really think of them.

        Reply
      2. NickC
        June 11, 2021

        Andy, Older people tend to have a higher IQ than younger people. But fewer degrees. That’s where your propaganda is mistaken.

        Reply
    3. jon livesey
      June 10, 2021

      “Perhaps just being at university gives them an innate sense of moral and intellectual superiority.”

      I think it does, but mainly because being at University used to be such a demanding experience. Trying to master Physics was quite a task, and today people want the same credit for learning to colour in maps.

      Reply
      1. Narrow Shoulders
        June 10, 2021

        snigger

        Reply
  32. Denis Cooper
    June 10, 2021

    Meanwhile a US diplomat has put pressure on the UK government over the Irish protocol:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/g7-summit-2021-joe-biden-accuses-boris-johnson-of-inflaming-irish-tensions-r88lcv6cg

    But it is not all bad:

    “However, in an olive branch to boost the chance of an agreement, she said that if Britain accepted demands to follow EU rules on agricultural standards, Biden would ensure that the matter “wouldn’t negatively affect the chances of reaching a US/UK free trade deal”.”

    Well, if you believe that little story then you will believe anything; but in any case while it might be nice to have a special trade deal with the US the overall economic gains would be negligible:

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2021/03/27/president-biden-drives-the-eu-to-a-more-aggressive-foreign-policy/#comment-1218648

    “She also asked how the US could be “helpful” in brokering a deal.”

    This is how the US could help: by explaining to the EU that it should no more expect to control what goods are legally permitted to circulate within any part of the UK now we have left the EU than it expects to control what goods are legally permitted to circulate within any part of the US or any other “third country”.

    Reply
    1. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      Denis, Exactly so.

      Reply
    2. Original Richard
      June 10, 2021

      ““However, in an olive branch to boost the chance of an agreement, she said that if Britain accepted demands to follow EU rules on agricultural standards, Biden would ensure that the matter “wouldn’t negatively affect the chances of reaching a US/UK free trade deal”.”

      Isn’t it the difference between EU and US food standards which prevents a US/EU free trade deal and hence if Britain accepted the EU’s demands to follow EU rules on agricultural standards it would definitely mean that a UK/US free trade deal could not be possible?

      Reply
    3. rose
      June 10, 2021

      I expect great good to come out of this blundering Biden interference, as it did with Obama’s in 2016.
      It should unite people against the EU and its illegitimate ally in the WH, and finally convince them to come out of the NIP. As the PM is reported to have rather strangely said, “the special relationship” is a phrase which smacks of neediness.

      Reply
  33. forthurst
    June 10, 2021

    As with the statue of Cecil Rhodes so with that of HM Portrait, the issue is one of foreign students stirring up trouble whilst here instead of studying. As a country we are far too tolerant of people of alien origin disrespecting our nation and our heritage. There is a half-baked theory that educating foreigners here is an investment in future good relations with the students’ respective countries. The best use of places at Oxford or any other English university is in educating English people. Of course, English educational establishments would lose out on international ratings but that is because these ratings are fraudulently engineered to promote the interests of globalists and their anti-English agenda and have nothing to do with the quality of the education provided.

    Reply
  34. Denis Cooper
    June 10, 2021

    Off topic, for those who are interested Richard North delves into details on the Irish protocol:

    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87999

    That’s not me, because as I see it in my simple minded way all that really matters is what goods are allowed to cross the land border into the Irish Republic and potentially then into the rest of the EU Single Market, not what goods may be landed at Felixstowe or other ports across the UK – that was the crackpot idea of Theresa May and Olly Robbins – nor what goods may be landed at Belfast or other ports in Northern Ireland – that is the equally crackpot but much more dangerous idea of Boris Johnson – but just what goods may be taken from Northern Ireland across the land border with the Republic.

    And the first step by the UK government should have been a unilateral declaration that it intended to leave that land border just as open as it was while the UK was in the EU, there would be no threat to the hardwon peace, and out of goodwill to our neighbours it would not tolerate that open border being used as a backdoor for contraband goods to enter the EU Single Market, and therefore it would ask Parliament to pass a law to put in place and rigorously enforce laws to control the exportation of goods across the border.

    Reply
    1. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      Denis, Indeed. Legitimate trade is completely documented already, and therefore traceable even when crossing from the UK (Northern Ireland) to the EU (Eire). All that the EU needs is to collect those documents. Which it can do on its own side of the border from businesses under EU law in Eire. And illegitimate trade is already illegal.

      Reply
  35. Margaretbj
    June 10, 2021

    The irony is that the monarchy is apolitical.

    Reply
  36. Newmania
    June 10, 2021

    In the 50s it was reds under the bed and there were indeed traitors in our midst .In the 70s it was the militant Unions and their wish to bring down the country , it wasn`t a fair story it was a titanic battle which reverberates today .In the 80s it was loony left Councils and there were indeed hugely powerful far left Empires ruling Inner Cities and calling the Public Libraries after Karl Marx.
    Now we are down to a few students who, like most educated people do not share the Brexity views of the old and their representatives . Who cares

    Reply
    1. hefner
      June 10, 2021

      What is quintessentially funny is that Dom is at least 30 years late in his ‘analyses’. He might be a teeny weeny more relevant if he were talking about how IT companies are scooping all types of behavioural information (every time one does a click on a website), which have been used over the last 10-15 years to profile people and influence them.
      But no, beware the reds under the bed. Oh yes Grandad (if not by age, by suppleness of mind).

      Reply
    2. Peter2
      June 10, 2021

      Lot more than a few students NM

      Reply
  37. DOM
    June 10, 2021

    Destroy woke fascism before it destroys our country. That is your party’s primary function. This once academic experiment has become a direct threat.

    Andrew Neil’s already declared his intent to try and confront this rancid, totalitarian poison which your party’s worked hard to embolden no matter what Johnson says in public

    Reply
    1. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      You are quite right, Dom. Destroy the precepts of our civilisation and the result won’t be a better civilisation, despite the claims of Andy, Martin, etc, there’ll be no civilisation. Contract law, property law, common law, democracy, traditional (Biblical) morals, freedom of speech, freedom of association, honesty, patriotism, etc, are all essential.

      Reply
  38. X-Tory
    June 10, 2021

    Sir John, I normally agree with you, but I take issue with your latest Tweet: “The U.K. should be free to allow sausages passage from GB to Northern Ireland as long as it stops them going on to the EU. ”

    You seem to be succumbing to Stockholm Syndrome. Our freedom to move our own goods freely around our own country is NOT subject to any restrictions to placate the EU (or any other foreign, or enemy, power).

    I frankly couldn’t care less if British sausages – or anything else – ends up in the EU. Why should I? It doesn’t concern me in the slightest. Why should it? Is the EU concerned about protecting the UK’s domestic market? Are they spending money on border checks to protect us? No, of course they’re not, and so why should we work, and spend money, to protect the EU? What you are proposing is NOT reciprocal, and is therefore unacceptable. Also, it pre-supposes that there is something ‘wrong’ with British sausages, and that we are responsible for protecting the EU from these.

    From the very beginning of the Brexit UK-EU negotiations I have said that we should be seeking an agreement similar to that between Australia and New Zealand, where they both have their separate rules, but agree that while they are different they are equally good. So there are no restrictions on imports and exports between the two countries. We must INSIST that our standards as equal to those of the EU, and act accordingly. And if the EU don’t like it, they can lump it.

    Reply
    1. Andy
      June 10, 2021

      You Brexitists signed us up a legally binding international treaty requiring checks on goods we are sending around our own country.

      It wasn’t as if you weren’t warned repeatedly that it was a bad deal. Yet virtually every Tory MP voted for the Withdrawal Agreement. All the Brexit Party MEPs voted for it. If you voted Tory in the 2019 general election to ‘get Brexit done’ this was the oven ready deal you voted for.

      Turns out the oven wasn’t ready for sausages.

      Reply
      1. steve
        June 10, 2021

        Fool

        “You Brexitists signed us up a legally binding international treaty requiring checks on goods we are sending around our own country.”

        No we did not. We voted to leave the EU and all it’s institutions. We did not sign up to anything. For signing up to bum deals look no further than YOUR Boris Johnson & Theresa May. Deceitful remainers both.

        Reply
        1. hefner
          June 11, 2021

          Steve, seriously, do you realise how ridiculous you sound. Indeed the majority voted to leave the EU. But the UK political system is such that the successive UK governments and parliaments that came out of the elections of 2017 and 2019 are the entities taking subsequent decisions, not little you. When the Davis, Raab, Barclay, Frost discussed with the EU, they did it for you,’in your name’. Whether you like it or not it is inconsequential.

          The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement was signed in December 2020 and the PM said ‘It is four and a half years since the British people voted to take back control of their money, their borders, their laws, and their waters and to leave the European Union. And earlier this year we fulfilled that promise and we left on January 31 with that oven-ready deal.’
          http://www.gov.uk ‘Prime Minister’s statement on EU negotiations: 24 December 2020’.

          You are very likely to have voted in the referendum and the successive GE for what happened later. Even if you did not, the majority did.
          So now, as you say so often to ‘Remoaners’ ‘we won, so now lump it’. So stop huffing and puffing, keep your breath, and try if possible to do something other than spending precious time on this blog for what I think is practically no impact on what Sir John might be doing/voting for.

          And that could apply to a number of the ‘distinguished’ people here … me included obviously.

          Reply
      2. NickC
        June 11, 2021

        Andy, you were the one who thought that remaining in the EU’s single market was a good deal.

        Reply
    2. NickC
      June 10, 2021

      X-Tory, All very true.

      Reply
    3. steve
      June 10, 2021

      X- Tory

      +1

      However you will find consumer power will have the last word on this. While the EU might succeed in their plan to starve NI into reunification with the south as long as we have gutless wets running the country and sympathiser Biden interfering……in the end the EU will loose out anyway if nobody buys their produce. It’s pointless exporting what no one will buy.

      I and everyone else I know is refusing to buy EU and RoI produce. In addition I no longer buy Scottish produce either, and am considering not buying anything from the US.

      In fact, my local supermarket has stopped selling French cheese altogether. The Manager informed me they could’nt give it away. Some Danish and Dutch lines are apparently still selling, but sales are barely worth the effort to stock.

      It’s simple – they get nasty with our country, don’t buy their things buy English instead.

      Reply
  39. Peter from Leeds
    June 10, 2021

    It reminded me of the famous Oxford Union debate of 9 February 1933. Oxford students do have a history of being anti establishment and yet many go on to serve their Queen/King and Country! Remember the CSU debates John?

    Reply
  40. mancunius
    June 10, 2021

    Instead of either 1) telling the graduate students that they had only temporary use of the MCR – from between one and three years – and so did not get to dictate the furnishing of college rooms, or 2) pointing out that we are a monarchy, Queen Elizabeth is our monarch, and graduate students’ political views on the matter are irrelevant, or 3) simply taking the portrait and hanging it in another place of honour, either in the SCR or the President’s Lodge, or in Hall, Dinah Rose, the professional human rights lawyer and outspoken political activist who is currently President (and Masters of Colleges are also temporary, let us not forget) meekly gave way and hid the painting away ‘in a safe place’. A decision that appears to be at the very least craven and opportunistic. It showed a disgraceful lack of leadership.

    Reply
    1. rose
      June 10, 2021

      She did worse than that. She tried to exonerate them when she had no need to and at the same time insulted the rest of us.

      Reply
  41. outsider
    June 10, 2021

    Dear Sr John, your first paragraph, in particular, is spot on. When I first read this story, it did not feel quite
    right – almost as if it had been staged or “horrored up” as journalists say, to spawn just the headlines it has created. If so it was briliantly successful. Note the timing, right at the end of the academic year, when many final year undergraduates,if not postgraduates, are looking for opportunities to launch a new career.

    Reply
  42. glen cullen
    June 10, 2021

    G7 – Just another jolly for the high and mighty to discuss in general terms how the world should function, just another network group thats unaccountable and doesn’t reflect the democratic voters, just another holiday away from work to collectively social engineer the world and taxation in their imagine….UN, Davso, G20, Cop26 etc, am I suspicious, god dam right I am suspicious

    Reply
    1. hefner
      June 10, 2021

      Unaccountable? Oh yes, sure: A. Merkel, M. Draghi, J. Trudeau, E. Macron, Y. Suga, J. Biden and B. Johnson do not reflect the democratic voters and you are as fit Arnold Schwarzenegger.
      I really think it was an enormous loss to the World when you could not be elected as leader and could not make it as PM.

      Reply
    2. Alan Jutson
      June 10, 2021

      Glen

      I guarantee it will cost us taxpayers ever more money.

      In the past decades when any of our Prime Ministers have attended any sort of conference anywhere in the World it cost us money with more and more costly promises being made.

      They like to splash the cash, but never their own.

      Reply
    3. glen cullen
      June 10, 2021

      Lets review what was achieved at the last G7 summit held on 24–26 August 2019, in Biarritz, France – Final 5 point communiqué
      · To settle disputes of Intellectual property protection more swiftly
      · Regulatory barriers and modernize international taxation
      · Iran to never acquires nuclear weapons and to foster peace
      · Support a truce in Libya that will lead to a long-term ceasefire
      · France and Germany to organize a Normandy format summit in the coming weeks to achieve tangible results reference the Russian military intervention in Ukraine

      Reply
  43. Lattis
    June 10, 2021

    The EU is well prepared now – if any EU member country has it in mind to pull the same stunt that UK pulled with brexit then am quite sure they will be quickly shown the door – the EU will only need to pull down the file on brexit dust it off – so then Hungary Greece or Italy better mind yourselves.

    Reply
    1. graham1946
      June 10, 2021

      It was not a ‘stunt’. It was a democratic process and every UK voter had the right to a say. A bit difficult for EU supporters to understand, I acknowledge, but I cannot think of a clearer way to say it. The EU won’t show anyone the door – they are desperate to sign up and keep any old lame donkey they can get, which is why 19 of the remaining 27 are on subsidies to keep them afloat. It is why they are so bitter that we have, sort of, left, even though they retain their power over part of or so-called ‘sovereign’ nation and can tell us what we can and cannot ship to our own people.

      Reply
    2. agricola
      June 10, 2021

      If they learn the lesson of Brexit they will activate Art.50 and depart the next day.

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        June 10, 2021

        I am still convinced that the extension to article 50 was unlawful and certainly immoral

        Reply
    3. jon livesey
      June 10, 2021

      The EU is prepared to pull itself apart? That works for me.

      Reply
  44. john waugh
    June 10, 2021

    Words can be powerful-can get you down -or can lift you up .
    Here are a few words I really like . They are from the cover of the book
    Arguably which is a collection of Christopher Hitchens ` writings.
    “Throughout his life he shone the light of reason and truth into the eyes
    of charlatans and hucksters,exposing falsehood and decrying hypocrisy
    wherever he found it. ”
    This accolade must be about the best a person can receive.
    Shining the light of reason and truth must surely be at the heart of lively
    exchanges and a thriving democracy.

    Reply
    1. Contrary
      June 10, 2021

      Who are the words about ?
      Hichens ?
      If so disagree.

      Reply
    2. steve
      June 10, 2021

      John Waugh

      Words can also be ignored, like Johnson’s words which are usually lies anyway.

      Reply
  45. acorn
    June 10, 2021

    I am getting a little bothered about the train load of new Treasury issued money (the budget deficit). My MMT peers are saying it is not an inflationary worry; because, everybody is saving the Treasury’s newly issued Pounds and not spending them. Plus, the BoE is swapping Gilts back into the cash (reserves) that bought them originally (known as QE).

    Basically, the economy is drowning in “liquidity” but the Banks are not making it available to private sector non-financial businesses. Far too much is taking the easy route into residential property mortgages. Investment that generates no income in GDP terms. (Except the ONS pretends that it does in its GDP calcs.)

    The velocity of circulation of the outstanding Treasury Pounds, our base money, has dropped to 2.1. Even the US Dollar has dropped to 3.6. These are both a fifth of what they should be for economies to be accelerating out of a depression.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 10, 2021

      Nor are the banks paying 2020 dividend on pain of death from the Prudential Regulation Authority i.e Government Instruction

      Reply
    2. Narrow Shoulders
      June 10, 2021

      Correct Acorn the inflation is hidden at present. The solution is to stop the banks printing at the same time as the government. Government needs to print at this time to fund its shutdown. The banks are just making hay.

      Government can shrink the money supply when demand for consumables returns

      Reply
  46. Blandell
    June 10, 2021

    There is an easier way around this protocol problem – if it could be agreed that all contentious goods bound for NI be landed in Dublin first and in that way they could be checked by EU officials before being driven north over the border in sealed containers to their respective destinations – so then no need for checks at Belfast or Larne ports

    Reply
    1. rose
      June 12, 2021

      Still a gross interference in our internal affairs. Do the guide dogs have to go to Dublin first too? And the tractors and military vehicles? The nursery plants in pots?

      Reply
  47. steve
    June 10, 2021

    JR

    “As someone who is not a voter for AFD, Lega, the US Republicans or National Rally, who does not support all their views and who keeps out of expressing individual views on foreign elections, I nonetheless am uneasy if UK universities think representatives of these parties and viewpoints should be excluded from the global debate.”

    I have to say Mr Redwood, this seems a bit rich considering your frequent censure of English patriotic views.

    Reply
    1. steve
      June 10, 2021

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      ….yeah I bet it is.

      Reply
  48. jon livesey
    June 10, 2021

    Fifty years ago, about five percent of High School pupils went on to University and course were pretty rigorous. Today the number is around fifty percent and you can take a university level course in ambulance driving.

    The word “University” no longer means what it did.

    Reply
    1. Shirley M
      June 10, 2021

      +1 The requirement for 50% to attend university meant a lot of graduates could not find graduate status jobs, so instead of re-examining the 50% it was decided to make virtually all jobs require a degree, resulting in unrealistic expectations of quick promotion and high pay. Many of these jobs were performed much better before they were filled by graduates, and much cheaper for the employee who received in-work training and where the no-hopers could be filtered out very quickly. by the employers.

      Reply
    2. steve
      June 10, 2021

      Jon Livesey

      +1

      Blair is your culprit.

      Reply
  49. jon livesey
    June 10, 2021

    I see that Stuart Rose, once head of “Britain Stronger in Europe” now regrets having been on the Remain side of the debate, and says something which is quite interesting.

    He says it was a mistake for Remain to use the economy as their main propaganda weapon, when the concerns of ordinary voters were really about immigration, loss of local services, housing, school places and NHS appointments.

    Yet, as he says, Remain – and the Treasury – insisted on spinning stories about the economy instead “And I think that was a big mistake”, which he now blames, somewhat strangely, on Bill Clinton’s election campaign.

    And he wants credit for figuring this all out after five years of deep thought.

    Reply
    1. Mike Wilson
      June 11, 2021

      @jon livesey

      Credit where it’s due. Rose has seen the light. Some contributors on here (no names, no pack drill (Andy and Martin)), are yet to become enlightened.

      Reply
  50. formula56
    June 10, 2021

    Mindful of the enduring validity of your point that “It is most important our universities themselves are strictly independent of political opinion or intellectual bias” you and others may wish to join me in expressing strong disappointment and disapproval of the decision some months ago by the London School of Economics and Political Science to become a full member (having been the sole associate member) of Civica. (Civica, as you may know, is anEU inspired initiative that describes itself as the European University of Social Sciences.)

    Given EU funding is provided I suspect that means there is the usual injunction against making any adverse comments about the EU. It also to my mind looks too much like a snub to the British people for having the cheek to vote for their own liberation. Once upon a time I would have remonstrated directly with the LSE and sought an explanation but as I mellow with age I have simply resorted to executing a new Will that removes the legacy in LSE’s favour that featured previously. A pity but it is a reflection of the age we live in.

    Reply
    1. formula57
      June 10, 2021

      Too mellow to get my own moniker correct!

      Reply
  51. Treacle
    June 10, 2021

    The MCR at Magdalen College has 250 students. The Mail reported the voting figures on the motion to remove the portrait of the Queen: 10 voted to remove it, 2 voted against. The rest of the students evidently had something better to do that day, such as studying. So a tiny minority playing student politics have caused offence to the entire country and brought their college and university into disrepute.

    Reply
  52. steve
    June 10, 2021

    The answer to ungrateful unpatriotic students is simple – ban them from wearing long trousers until they’ve grown up and make short back & sides compulsory haircut. Also 10pm curfew and strictly no alcohol.

    Reply
  53. rose
    June 10, 2021

    When the first statues were daubed, vandalised, and toppled, both here and in America,
    the question arose, “Who next?” Queen Victoria? – she certainly was. But no-one thought the present Queen would be picked on by the cultural revolutionaries so soon. The mistake many in the ensuing debate made was to discuss this incident at Oxford in isolation. It was not an isolated event but part of a sequence, and turned out for many to be the final straw.

    Would any of those foreign graduates who took part in this stunt have dared to insult their own heads of state in the same way? And how many of them were here on British money?

    Reply
  54. Mike Wilson
    June 11, 2021

    @treacle

    ‘brought offence to the entire country’?

    Nah. Just to Express, Mail and Telegraph readers.

    Reply
    1. hefner
      June 11, 2021

      I would bet that a number of the Mail and Express ‘supporters’ here do not even buy the daily paper, they just have a look at the respective web sites.

      The Express one is brilliant today quoting the fragrant Charles-Henri Gallois of ‘Generation Frexit’ about Macron’s declaration before the G7 meeting. Charles-Henri is obviously a heavy-weight politician, he was the organiser of Francois Asselineau’s 2017 presidential campaign who got … 0.92% of the votes.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *