No freedom of speech in England.

[Armoured]

Treating people as people is one thing and promoting perversion another. A Social Worker ethos that actively promotes moral relativism does nothing for society.

Saying "don't be nasty to gays" isn't "promoting perversion ".

 

[Chris B]

Britain is a theocracy, with a state religion, the head of which is appointed directly by God. Unelected representatives of said state religion are permanent members of the British legislature.

And you foreigners, in your secular countries with leaders chosen by mere mortals rather than deities, have the nerve to question our religiosity!

Yes, divine providence is clearly seen in the Queen being allowed to live so long.

Mind you it needed some fast footwork to get the honorific title "Defender of the Faith" back when after having had it bestowed by a pope it was then removed by one (same one? need to look).
Parliament came to the rescue, whether they were allowed to or not.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Britain is a theocracy, with a state religion, the head of which is appointed directly by God. Unelected representatives of said state religion are permanent members of the British legislature.

And you foreigners, in your secular countries with leaders chosen by mere mortals rather than deities, have the nerve to question our religiosity!

I will say nothing to this except that it reeks of pride in something that began with the desires of a king to do what he wanted, no matter who thought what.

 

[Chesterton]

I will say nothing to this except that it reeks of pride in something that began with the desires of a king to do what he wanted, no matter who thought what.

Oh really? So how do you account for the fact that he was able to obtain Excalibur from the Lady Of The Lake?! I don't see any watery tarts handing you a sword! Go back to your anarcho-syndicalist commune.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Oh really? So how do you account for the fact that he was able to obtain Excalibur from the Lady Of The Lake?! I don't see any watery tarts handing you a sword! Go back to your anarcho-syndicalist commune.

You are bringing up a pagan myth of King Arthur into a discussion about Henry the eighth and you wish me to go where?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Oh really? So how do you account for the fact that he was able to obtain Excalibur from the Lady Of The Lake?! I don't see any watery tarts handing you a sword! Go back to your anarcho-syndicalist commune.

Ok I just got the your joke here. I loved Monty Python Search for the holy grail.

I apologize profusely for missing such a classic scene of a film.

 

[Chris B]

You are bringing up a pagan myth of King Arthur into a discussion about Henry the eighth and you wish me to go where?

Go Norse, young man, Go Norse.

 

[TerranceL]

If you have a better suggesting to change society-wide mainstream attitudes, be my guest.

The best way to defeat bad ideas is by debate that proves they are bad ideas.

Legal action turns the man into a martyr for his cause and helps perpetuate the problem.

 

[TerranceL]

Saying "don't be nasty to gays" isn't "promoting perversion ".

Is there any evidence that he was "nasty to gays" beyond quoting the bible?

 

[Armoured]

Is there any evidence that he was "nasty to gays" beyond quoting the bible?

My comment was to Mindlight, no one mentioned the Bible.

 

[Armoured]

The best way to defeat bad ideas is by debate that proves they are bad ideas.

Legal action turns the man into a martyr for his cause and helps perpetuate the problem.

In theory, I agree with you.

However, in practical terms, I'm sure that legal protections of civil rights are necessary. Societies are made of people, and people are imperfect. If we all had A. the time, B. the intelligence, C. the objectivity, to fully discuss the complexities and nuances of every issue, that would be great. But we don't.

 

[TerranceL]

My comment was to Mindlight, no one mentioned the Bible.

Ah my bad.

 

[TerranceL]

In theory, I agree with you.

However, in practical terms, I'm sure that legal protections of civil rights are necessary. Societies are made of people, and people are imperfect. If we all had A. the time, B. the intelligence, C. the objectivity, to fully discuss the complexities and nuances of every issue, that would be great. But we don't.

Of course legal protections of civil rights are necessary, the question is did what this fellow do violate anybodies civil rights?

If the answer is no, why is he being punished?

 

[Armoured]

Of course legal protections of civil rights are necessary, the question is did what this fellow do violate anybodies civil rights?

If the answer is no, why is he being punished?

I was speaking in generalities.

 

[MrSpikey]

Of course legal protections of civil rights are necessary, the question is did what this fellow do violate anybodies civil rights?

If the answer is no, why is he being punished?

The article below indicates that they considered his conduct in terms of the standards of the professional body he was aiming to ulimately join. Their argument would seem to be that if he can't meet the standards during training, then he would not be able to join the professional organisation.

The panel was run by the university but considered conduct in relation to the Health and Care Professions Council standards for social workers. It concluded Ngole was entitled to his opinions but there was a danger that “publicly posting those views” would have an effect on his ability to practice as a social worker.
What the HCPC standards say
1.5 You must not discriminate against service users, carers or colleagues by allowing your personal views to affect your professional relationships or the care, treatment or other services that you provide.
1.6 You must challenge colleagues if you think that they have discriminated against, or are discriminating against, service users, carers and colleagues.
2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
9.4 You must declare issues that might create conflicts of interest and make sure that they do not influence your judgement.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016...dent-expelled-course-anti-gay-facebook-posts/

While I agree with them that his conduct seems to violate these, I'm not sure they've gone about in a way that will stand up in court.

Having said that, if he is allowed back and qualifies, then he may not be able to join the profession if he continues to violate their standards.

 

[loveofourlord]

You mean like the government sending you to jail for saying mean things on twitter?

No thats stifling free speach. Freedom of speach says you won't be prevented from saying things. It never EVER means, your free to say what you want and people arn't allowed to stop giving you a platform. A university, a job, a tv station, a convention and any other place has the right to say, your allowed to say what you want, we just won't give you the podium to say it from here. There is such thing as image, and you want a pro Christian, or a progay, or a pro X image, allowing someone to say things against that ruins said image.

There is this bizzare idea that only recently started that freedom of speach means you MUST give me a platform anywhere I want.

 

[Gadarene]

No thats stifling free speach. Freedom of speach says you won't be prevented from saying things. It never EVER means, your free to say what you want and people arn't allowed to stop giving you a platform. A university, a job, a tv station, a convention and any other place has the right to say, your allowed to say what you want, we just won't give you the podium to say it from here. There is such thing as image, and you want a pro Christian, or a progay, or a pro X image, allowing someone to say things against that ruins said image.

There is this bizzare idea that only recently started that freedom of speach means you MUST give me a platform anywhere I want.

It's not recent at all (and frankly, so what if it was). And again, people who object to that idea are wilfully ignoring the difference between freedom of expression in the legal sense and freedom of expression as a virtue.

 

[HannahT]

Oh, I don't deny that liberalism is riddled with hypocrisy on the topic of the first amendment, I acknowledged that in my first post.

Where our conclusions differ is that I don't feel that the university has reneged on the agreement as it pertains to his prior time at the school.

College is very much a "pay as you go" model. The classes he's taken so far still equate to transferable credits that will be honored at other institutions so they haven't robbed him of anything in that regard. He's paid for a bunch of prior classes, passed them, and as a result has verified credits for each of those classes on the books. He's gotten what he paid for thus far. The university simply chose to no longer accept his payment in exchange for credits. Now, anything that's currently pending...for example, if he paid for this semester, and they're terminating their agreement halfway through...he should be refunded that portion of it.

I'm curious as what you feel about the 'bigot burger' example?!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm curious as what you feel about the 'bigot burger' example?!

If you're talking about the example that the other poster mentioned, I did touch on that before and express that I felt that was bit of a false equivalence. ...as paying for college is a pay as you go model vs. buying a burger, which is a one time transaction.

From a personal standpoint, I feel a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose, or no reason at all for that matter. Now, a business owner does not have the right to take your money, then refuse to provide the good/service.

So in the burger example, the refusal of service would have to happen prior to the business owner actually getting the money from the prospective customer.

But like I said before, college isn't a one time transaction. This student has paid for 6 semesters of education, and as a result, has been able to attend 6 semesters worth of classes. His only valid claim for a refund would be the current semester he was in as he didn't get to finish it.

 

[Chesterton]

Since the thread title is about freedom in England generally, we should remember that people get banned from entry into the U.K. based solely on their speech and nothing else - Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage, Terry Jones, Julien Blanc to name a few. Completely banned from even a visit.

When Canadian preacher Todd Bentley was banned, the U.K. Government's Home Office stated with righteous indignation: "Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who might seek to undermine our society." You might want to let that soak in, and keep it in mind the time you're watching one of the flood of videos of angry Muslims with their signs saying "Death To U.K.!" "Sharia For the U.K." and "Britain Is Ours Now!"