Oxford University has forced the Students’ Union to reverse its decision to ban the Oxford Union from exhibiting at freshers’ fair this autumn. The Telegraph’s Louisa Clarence-Smith has more.
Oxford University has intervened to protect free speech in a row that has engulfed the institution.
In a letter to The Telegraph, one of the university’s pro-vice-chancellors tells students they must be prepared to “encounter and confront difficult views, including ones they find unsettling, extreme or even offensive”.
Prof Martin Williams’s comments come after students tried to cancel an appearance by Prof Kathleen Stock, a leading feminist, at the Oxford Union later this month over her views that trans women are not women.
Oxford University’s Student Union (SU) said it would ban the Oxford Union from its freshers’ fair, accusing the historic debating society of having a “toxic culture of bullying and harassment”.
However, it has now reversed its position after the university reminded the SU’s trustees of its free speech policy. The SU had said its actions were not related to Prof Stock’s appearance.
Earlier this week, more than 40 Oxford academics wrote to The Telegraph supporting Prof Stock, saying she should be free to discuss her views at the university and warning that freedom of speech was at risk.
Prof Williams said: “We do not allow the no-platforming of any lawful speech but also support the right of students, staff and societies to protest and challenge speakers at events, as long as they do so within the law and our policies.”
He added: “The Oxford Union, a debating society independent of the university but whose leaders and members are mostly drawn from our student body, has not been banned from attending the freshers’ fair.
“Students should be free to decide whether to join a society or club. While we understand there are concerns held by the Student Union about the Oxford Union, the university is actively encouraging the two organisations to discuss the issues.”
The university said the decision to allow the Union to have a stall at the freshers’ fair, which is an important source of income from membership sign-ups, was taken independently by the SU’s trustees.
Prof Williams said: “The university and its colleges host hundreds of events each term and we will continue to invite a wide range of speakers.
“Despite what some may have been led to believe, freedom of speech and expression is alive and well at Oxford.”
Worth reading in full.
Not coincidentally, the Free Speech Union wrote to the Oxford University Proctors’ Office – the body tasked with upholding student discipline – urging it to open an investigation into the officers of the Students’ Union last week. We argued that the SU’s decision was a breach of the University’s Free Speech Policy, as well as its Code of Practice on Meetings and Events and threatened to take the university to court if the officers weren’t disciplined.
Another victory for the Free Speech Union. You can join here for as little as £2.49 a month.
Stop Press: Irene Tracy, Oxford’s new Vice-Chancellor, has given an interview to Saturday’s Times in which she unequivocally defends the right of Kathleen Stock to speak at the Oxford Union. A group of Oxford academics have also spoken to the Times, explaining why they too support Kathleen Stock.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
ALL the so-called vaccines have terrible side effects. Check out the UK Column searchable MHRA yellow card data. Eye watering!
https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports
Try typing in “clot”, for example, and then search by vaccine manufacturer.
Most people have no idea.
The mechanism for the clotting was warned about by the Doctors for Covid Ethics in March.
Nothing to see here
Very interesting article on the BBC, which inadvertently leaks some key data.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57075503
Ignore the misinformation headline that describes “mild” symptoms – that is undermined by the opening paragraph which instantly becomes “mild or moderate”. Look at the charts. They are inadvertently showing that in a trial 50%+ of “vaccine” recipients reported fatigue, rising to nearly 80% when “vaccines” were mixed. Similarly up to 40% report headache, rising to over 60% when mixing “vaccines”.
These figures are shocking. The original study leaks even more information, including severity.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01115-6/fulltext#sec1
Download the PDFs while you can. This appears to be showing, amongst other things that the Pfizer “vaccine” is sending a small percentage (it looks around 2%) of people to hospital for headaches! Both vaccines send more than 1% to hospital for fever and AZ also for “chills”. Well, now we can see why hospitals are busy.
There is a huge spike in severity when mixing “vaccines”, in particular for Pfizer followed by AZ. Could this be a warning of the effect that will lead to Antibody Dependant Enhancement?
I don’t have time today, but it would be interesting to use this data along with yellow card data to compute an estimate of the actual yellow card under-reporting and extrapolate the real figures for side effects. I think we have all the data for this. If proportions for various symptoms match up in yellow card and this study then we could have reasonable confidence in the extrapolation. I couldn’t see any raw data for the study so it will probably require zooming in to column charts and measuring them.
On closer inspection the hospitalisations were actually “severe”, the colour coding was not clear.
Wow. And this may show up more once children begin to be jabbed. Many mothers won’t go public because they will feel guilty, but some will feel the need to warn others.
Alex Berenson reporting that VAERS have prioritised the J&J in cataloguing their backlog, so that reporting on Pfizer is hidden for now.
One thought I had was that UK Column’s page https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports puts the total UK adverse events at about 750,000. They say between 1% and 10% of actual adverse events end up being reported. Well if only 1% are being reported, that would equate to 75,000,000 adverse events, which is more than the amount of vaccines administered. So my crap maths indicates that more than 1% are being reported. 10% reported would give a real figure of 7,500,000 adverse events, out of 50 million odd injections (I just checked and it’s 54 million so not a bad guess!) , which I would imagine is a bit too low, given what we know, so maybe the real figure is somewhere in between the two.
Don’t forget that the number of adverse reactions will likely include multiple reactions per person. We cannot tell how many unique people reported side effects. Fortunately the study also suffers this effect so the two may still be comparable. They have been pretty effective at data obfuscation.
‘Scientists are working to find the potential mechanism that would explain the blood clots. A leading hypothesis appears to be that the vaccines are triggering a rare immune response that could be related to these viral vectors.’
What a load of smelly stuff!
The AZ and JJ vaccines trigger an immune response early as the spike protein invades cells in the blood veins/capilliary linings as soon as its injected, nobody can miss this so its been reported early. The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines cover the mRNA with a gel that stops that quick recognition by the immune system. But as a consequence it has the same effect only it takes the T-cells/anti-bodies longer to muster their defences and the spike proteins can be carried anywhere in the body to create the spike factories that will never get turned off. Its the mRNA vaccines that in the medium/longer term carry the greater threat.
Most every intelligent person looking at this knows this. But the vast majority are scared to say so. They are potentially complicit in mass murder by their silence.
2 jabs – 1 clot
Just the name is offputting, one Johnson is one too many