More than 500 academics, including Sir Niall Fergusson, have written to the Education Secretary to demand she implement the Freedom of Speech Act, which she torpedoed last month. The Times has more.
Ministers have been accused by some of Britain’s most eminent academics of giving in to so-called cancel culture after reversing plans to enshrine freedom of speech in universities.
Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, said last month she was suspending legislation that would have forced universities to defend free speech on campus. She claimed the act, which was due to come into force this month, was “not fit for purpose” and could “expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses”.
But in a letter to Phillipson, more than 500 academics have called on her to rethink the decision, warning that a failure to act would allow staff and students to be “hounded, censured and silenced” for holding legitimate, legal views.
Among those who have signed the letter include the renowned biologist Richard Dawkins, who was attacked for his views on religion following the publication of his book The God Delusion. It was also backed by the philosopher Kathleen Stock, whose gender-critical views have led to protests when she has spoken at universities, and the historian Niall Ferguson.
More than 50 academics at Oxford University and 30 who represent Cambridge have signed the letter. These include the historian David Abulafia, who criticised Britain’s membership of the European Union, and Robert Tombs, who has campaigned against the censorship of historical texts in universities.
In the letter they warn Phillipson that suspending the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act risks putting academics at risk and suppressing learning.
“The decision to halt (the act) appears to reflect the view, widespread among opponents, that there is no ‘free speech problem’ in UK universities. Nothing could be more false,” they wrote.
“Hundreds of academics and students have been hounded, censured, silenced or even sacked over the last 20 years for the expression of legal opinions.
“This state of affairs has serious consequences for all of us. The suppression of university research into the effects of puberty blockers facilitated one of the great medical scandals of our age, as the Cass Review makes clear.”
They added that a report published earlier this year by the Academic Freedom Index placed the UK 66th in the global league table of academic freedom, lower than Peru, Burkina Faso and Georgia.
Worth reading in full.
You can read the letter – and if you’re an academic add your name to it – here.
The Free Speech Union is applying for a judicial review of Bridget Phillipson’s decision to quash the Act, which is the first major legal challenge the Labour Government has faced. You can read the FSU’s pre-action protocol letter here and contribute to the its Legal Fighting Fund here.
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.
Have you spoken to Dr Malcolm Kendrick, he works in carehomes, he’s been speaking out about this https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/05/11/how-to-make-a-crisis-far-far-worse/
One of few remaining Doctors with ‘common sense’, recommend his book ‘Doctoring Data’ a real eye-opener.
One of the reasons for so many deaths in care homes is that it was a disaster waiting to happen
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/18/daphne-havercroft-covid-19-how-the-nhs-protects-itself-by-neglecting-the-elderly/
NSW following the same NHS protocol
Another reason for so many deaths in care homes is that the NHS and local authority goal is to spend as little money as possible on the care needs of the residents. Many of them are approaching the end of their lives and they are not getting the health care they need to reduce their risk of succumbing to serious diseases because the NHS downplays their health care needs to avoid having to provide the care it free at the point of need. Local authorities go along with this.
People whose care needs are primarily health as opposed to social care are legally entitled to have all their care paid for by the NHS, under NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC).
Despite people living longer with complex health needs, the number deemed eligible for CHC has fallen and there is a post code lottery. This problem has been brewing for a long time, exacerbated by reduction in the number of acute hospital beds.
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/continuing-health-care-funding-and-end-of-life-care/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/27/vulnerable-pensioners-dementia-facing-crippling-care-bills-following/
You would think that local authorities would push back against the NHS and not accept responsibility for people whose care needs might be primarily health needs and therefore outside the local authority’s legal remit, but they don’t and cave in.
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/nhs-chc-and-supine-council-leaders/
Of course not everyone in a care home is eligible for NHS CHC, but such is the NHS enthusiasm to downplay all health needs, that there is a risk that provision of routine, health care, free at the point of need, including end of life and palliative care planning, is patchy at best, so the residents are sitting ducks when a nasty virus enters their care home.
Everyone in a care home is registered with a GP and many practices look after all the residents in a care home, doing the weekly equivalent of ward rounds. Therefore what risk assessments did GPs do before allowing hospitals to discharge recovering Covid-19 patients into care homes in order to protect their patients from unnecessary risk of harm and death?
I think the answer is in Dr Kendrick’s blog.
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/05/11/how-to-make-a-crisis-far-far-worse/
“The bullying began. Of course, it wasn’t called bullying, but hospitals needed to be cleared out and nothing and no-one was going to get in the way.”
Obviously there were no risk assessments.
Thanks for this – will have a look at these links. Very helpful.
would you knowingly give someone with ‘distressing shortness of breath’ a drug with ‘respiratory depression and respiratory arrest’ as a known side effect (according to manufacturer’s safety warning)