all 20 comments

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This article is misleading. (Wow, I'm sounding like a broken record.)

Not the reason

According to BBC News’s first article on the topic (the source for quotes in this section where otherwise not stated / implied), and according to its given sources:

He wrote: "RT [retweet] if women don't have penises", linked to an article in The Spectator on the same subject, and later defended his views.

I think starting an invalidating "RT if" targeting vulnerable people is a little worse (understatement) than just voicing your opinion on the matter, which

[…] saying ‘women don’t have penises’

implies happened. But, that was merely a contributor to his dismissal from the post of assistant editor to his university's philosophy journal.

Mr Sofocleous was sacked from his post as assistant editor at Durham University's philosophy society's journal last August after he tweeted comments deemed by some people to be transphobic.

The actual reason given for this whole issue was:

[…] due to "security concerns" […]
The union said […] security was needed. […]
Mr Sofocleous tweeted he had been "de-platformed" from the debate due to concerns "my presence might spark protests which might lead to physical violence". […]
[…] his presence on campus being a "high risk". […]
Bristol SU made an initial assessment of the speaker and recommended that security would be needed to ensure this event could run safely and smoothly.

“Our initial assessment of the speaker, made in consultation with the police, is that public disorder is highly likely”, @Bristol_SU says.

Angelos Sofocleous himself, on Twitter

It's not ideological suppression.

He wasn't barred

This one's a little more controversial, but the article has nevertheless completely misrepresented it.

The society said the student union had banned him from the panel discussion.

The union said it was "committed" to free speech but security was needed. […]

Mr Sofocleous tweeted he had been "de-platformed" from the debate due to concerns "my presence might spark protests which might lead to physical violence". […]

The university's free speech society said it had been told by the student union "in order to hold the event as scheduled we must disinvite him as a panellist" due to his presence on campus being a "high risk". […]

The student union said it had "not refused Angelos Sofocleous as a speaker" and was "committed to freedom of speech and the rights of all our students to discuss difficult and sensitive topics" […]

[A spokesperson added:] "The Freedom of Speech Society was informed of this one week prior to the event with the recommendation that the event is rearranged in order to allow security measures to be put in place and the event to go ahead."

The free speech society, and Angelos Sofocleous, have claimed that the student union have barred him from the talk. The union, however, have said that they merely recommended a rearrangement and for security measures to be put in place.

He attended the debate – and spoke at it.

He wasn't barred; he attended and spoke, as you can see in BBC News article the second:

The debate passed without any protest, according to Mr Sofocleous, who was critical of the student union for its initial safety assessment.

"The SU had misjudged their assessment that there would be protests or outrage because of my presence. [”]


Mr Sofocleous said he joined the panel after a vote was taken by attendees about whether he should leave the audience and sit at the front as originally planned.

As he attended, he could not have been barred, which supports the assumption that he was not actually barred. He may have been barred from speaking, but the Student Union has stated that this was not their intent – and ultimately he wasn't.


  • The debate organisers wanted him there.
  • The debate organisers said that the student union barred him.
  • The student union said that it merely recommended that increased security was provided if he were to attend, due to the potential for violent protests.
  • He attended and spoke anyway.
  • There were no protests.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess anyone with a dissenting viewpoint from what the oligarchy, and media give, is simply a 'hater'. A hater, is code for someone who is less than valuable in this newly emerging society; it's code for, 'it's okay to violate this being's rights, and it's even socially acceptable to lash out at them'.

[–]HurkaDurka 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's amazing what fictional worlds people can create for themselves to live inside if. Almost impressive, the amount of cognitive dissonance...

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Wasn't this on the radio? They haven't barred him from speaking; just rescheduled the talk.

Edit: They didn't even reschedule; that was merely a recommendation.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So it appears he was scheduled for a talk, bu then everyone got involved, and singled this guy out; after he was scheduled. For this guy to speak, the folks who want him to speak have to go through extra hoops, or it's a no go.

If the 'extra steps', aren't necessary for others, why can it not be viewed as 'barred'?

As to this being on any radio program, I'm not familiar with it.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

why can it not be viewed as 'barred'?

Because he wasn't barred…

2. Prevented, either by a physical barrier or by conditions.

He is barred by term limits from running for a third term in office.


He's not been prevented from talking. He can still talk there. They've just rescheduled when he was going to talk. There aren't extra hoops that have to be jumped through by "the folks who want him to speak"; that's already sorted.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Right, I think '2. Prevented, either by..........................., or by 'conditions'.

A condition-"noun: condition; plural noun: conditions

the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being."

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

And those conditions haven't prevented him from speaking.

He has not been prevented from speaking. The Student Union merely strongly recommended against him being there without security involved since they reckoned his presence was going to cause disturbance.

Ultimate proof: He was there. Therefore, he was not prevented from speaking. Therefore, he was not barred.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Okay, so originally banned, but allowed due to outcry would be what this was. Had no one mirrored, and spoken up, he would've not been allowed. Even as the post event article that showed him there, it stated he was 'allowed on stage', it never even said, 'hey, the libtard student union apologizes for trying to ruin the students event, and we apologize even further as we know what we did, actually cost participation in the event due to people thinking this speaker was banned'.... NOPE, NOT A MENTION. I'm glad they allowed him to attend.

Having that said though, everyone one of the articles you linked to, backed up that he was indeed 'conditionally banned'. You can shorten that to banned, and then once you read the definitions of banned, the wording was proper. I mention this, as I read through every link you provide.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'm not sure why the titles of the articles said "banned", unless the society felt that the union was ordering them to ban him. What I've heard from interviews has been firmly on the "not-banned" side.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

It probably said banned, as the university used that wording, as well as the man who was 'banned'; he also used it.

I don't think there's much of an issue with the word banned, in this context. The bat-s***-crazy liberals, know to publicly demonize events like this.

While what they did actually garnered more attention, and did result in the man 'being allowed on stage', but how many people did it detour from the actual event?

Due to the student unions actions, how many didn't attend? How many pertinent questions, or answers were never spoken?

It's not a freak occurrence what was done in the situation outlined in the article. It's somewhat of a common ploy by the far gone liberal left.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You're asking questions. You should know that I'm not omniscient. Do the research, call the people, gather the data. That's how to find the answers.

[–]SundogsPlace[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think we've all seen 'absolute fact' in journalism, where even the experts agree that the topic turns out to be contrived. I'm trying to comprehend where you're coming from; as you seem to dismiss topics based off of wording used, rather than what potential merit is there.

My questions were directed towards you; as in our current state in time, the regular journalists, the ones paid to lie, and now that are learning to code(LOL), well, we're seeing their lies unfold everywhere. Also, I think it is somewhat an effect of the same, but it seems like it's becoming common for people to raise a stink over things that would've never been issues; without modern society 'creating' a reason to make them such.

Oh, and thanks for letting me know your not omniscient.