Durham Philosophy Journal editor sacked for saying women don't have penises

Erm, the speaker has never been violent before and has never been part of any violent disorder.
*
So how can Bristol Students Union and the police assess him and conclude that public disorder is highly likely?

One can only infer that the police think there is a high risk of public disorder arising from people who vehemently oppose freedom of speech, in particular on certain issues

They should get a cardboard cut-out of Angelos and place it on a chair at the panel table for the duration of the event.

Have I Got News For You did similar when Roy Hattersley cancelled at the last minute. And replaced him with a tub of lard.

The question the panel would raise is “Is there a problem with free speech on campus?”

Oh my god! Literally LOLed.

"Our initial assessment of the speaker, made in consultation with the police, is that public disorder is highly likely”, @Bristol**_SU says".

Erm, the speaker has never been violent before and has never been part of any violent disorder.

So how can Bristol Students Union and the police assess him and conclude that public disorder is highly likely?

Which police officers have made this assessment of Angelos?

Fortunately, Angelos is not a gentleman to let this go.

He links to this document:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/freedom-of-expression-guide-for-higher-education-providers-and-students-unions-england-and-wales.pdf

The SU's actions are unlawful:
An SU considers inviting a writer to debate gender equality. It has a policy of not inviting speakers who use what it calls ‘hate speech’. During planning, they find out that the writer has spoken on social media about their belief that women with a Gender Recognition Certificate are still men. The SU official organising the debate decides that the writer’s views amount to transphobic hate speech, and announces on Twitter that they have decided not to invite the writer. The writer complains that the SU’s decision to ‘no-platform’ them violates their right to freedom of expression.

The writer has not yet been invited to speak, and, as there is no legal duty on the SU to invite them, there is no infringement of the writer’s freedom of speech.

However, if an affiliated society or other students invited the same speaker to talk, the SU could not prevent them from doing so as the speaker’s views are lawful. This would engage the HEP’s s.43 duty to protect free speech, informed by the Article 10 rights of the students and speaker to give and receive ideas.

due to concerns that my presence might spark protests which might lead to physical violence

What utter bullshit that is.

Honestly couldn't make this up, could you?

"I have just been de-platformed by @Bristol_SU from a panel debate on ‘Free speech on campus’ organized by the University of Bristol Free Speech Society due to concerns that “my presence might spark protests which might lead to physical violence”. "

twitter.com/Sofocleous_A/status/1094631188789149696?s=19

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

Nothing could provide a more ironic indication of the current status of social justice orthodoxy in academia than banning a speaker from an event titled ‘Free speech on campus’.

The question the panel would raise is “Is there a problem with free speech on campus?” @Bristol_SU has answered this question loud and clear, even before the event takes place, using tactics that have only been practiced by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes and institutions.

The tactics of @Bristol_SU are damaging academic discourse and are patronizing to the student community. Universities are no longer places where one can expose themselves to different points of view and challenge their worldview, but places enforcing liberal orthodoxy.

Sorry posted too soon

If they want to remove someone then they have to follow procedures either via a vote of no confidence (which can be on any basis if votes by members) or following an investigation which finds they have broken the rules with appropriate warnings etc.

The SU haven't ruled on if those rules have been broken, just on the fact that proper procedures weren't followed.

I think what they are trying to say is that each society is responsible for electing their various positions and can remove officers if they decide they have no confidence in them/ if they breach SU policy but they have to follow proper procedures if they want to do that

Do we know whether he only complained that he hadn't followed the correct procedure? I'm a bit confused by the Durham SU apology.

It says A complaint that correct and fair regulatory procedures were not followed in removing Mr Sofocleous from both groups has been investigated and upheld. No complaint in connection to debates about freedom of speech or trans rights has been upheld.

Why start one sentence with "A complaint .... has been upheld" and a second sentence with "No complaint .... has been upheld" .

Am I reading too much into it or are they implying that had they followed correct procedures that they were justified in firing him for his comments?

Ok, well if they said "most people find fat people unattractive" it would likely get a unfavourable response...

Attractiveness is subjective.

Penises are not.

Well, women don't have penises, but it's still a volatile subject to broach at work. We all know that.

If somebody in the public eye proclaimed "fat people are generally not attractive" I imagine they'd also get crucified.

Surely if they recognise that he was removed from his posts unfairly, he should be reinstated?
I’m glad at least that he has this apology. This whole mess made me embarrassed to be a Durham grad when I’ve always been so proud to have gone there.

Yes, that's all it does - but it's an important recognition that even students unions (let alone the grownup parts of unis) must follow proper procedures.

Hold on: all that that statement is saying is that proper procedures weren't followed - ie, no verbal warnings, written warnings, whatever It concedes nothing on the grounds for his dismissal, I don't think

Apology up on Durham SU website. Hopefully other universities will follow suit and get to grips with the fascist tendencies of some of their students.

www.durhamsu.com/articles/apology-to-angelous-sofocleous

Thank goodness for that!

Great news! Well done! The voice of reason won this time!

So Students’ Unions haven’t completely lost the plot. Good.

Excellent news

So good to hear this - applauding and phew! What a horrid time that must have been

Very good news.

I see good things ahead for Angelos. He's bright, articulate, charismatic and no pushover. I hope this shit show will be the making of him.

twitter.com/Sofocleous_A/status/1056874851015761920?s=19

Some good news

I am happy to see that Durham Students' Union has carried out an investigation on my firings from @DUPS_Critique and @DurhamBubble and has concluded that my firings were unfair and undemocratic, calling for the journal and the magazine to apologize. Thank you @durhamSU. t.co/ZR94AktBEZ