Kathleen Stock on BBC Woman's Hour today

[Justme56]

Just seen this on twitter.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

This was NOT an opinion piece - the BBC article is a news story and should reference sources and comments - that's my point.

It is a report of an interview

It should be balanced and follow up substantiated and unsubstantiated remarks made in a broadcast interview

It should be able to reference quotes from social media - otherwise it is another hatchet job

Every time he makes a comment on women’s spaces that tweet of him kicking off because men aren’t allowed access to a mammogram waiting room, that women have to walk through in hospital gowns, should be posted alongside it. The sheer arrogance, entitlement and ignorance of the man.

HoardingSamphireSaurus, you say you don't want to silence student demos, so what would you have done? How would you have "educated" them into "having a point"? The demonstrator we spoke to was highly articulate and clearly thought they had a point. I'm not sure how you'd have dissuaded them. I saw no flares or fly posting and they explained why they were wearing masks - they may have been overly paranoid, but it was a reasoned point. If they'd been advocating violence in any way I would be the first to say that's crossing a line, but I saw no evidence of that. Abhorrent things happened as part of the campaign against Kathleen Stock and those should be stamped on and outlawed,, but on that day, that's not what we saw. I didn't agree with them, but I do think they have a right to a peaceful protest. Would you have set Security on them and have them dragged away?

Sorry? Kathleen Stock talking about what has happened to her, from her perspective... a talking head piece. All her opinions, experiences etc. Transcribed from a radio interview.

They weren't seeking to impeach a president!

@Aber77

HoardingSamphireSaurus, you say you don't want to silence student demos, so what would you have done? How would you have "educated" them into "having a point"? The demonstrator we spoke to was highly articulate and clearly thought they had a point. I'm not sure how you'd have dissuaded them. I saw no flares or fly posting and they explained why they were wearing masks - they may have been overly paranoid, but it was a reasoned point. If they'd been advocating violence in any way I would be the first to say that's crossing a line, but I saw no evidence of that. Abhorrent things happened as part of the campaign against Kathleen Stock and those should be stamped on and outlawed,, but on that day, that's not what we saw. I didn't agree with them, but I do think they have a right to a peaceful protest. Would you have set Security on them and have them dragged away?

You just aren't reading are you?

I have explained all of that, outlined it quite clearly.

You are ignoring so much.

And are suggesting shit I haven't said.

But, as you asked: critical thinking used to be a standalone module. It needs to be brought back, every semester, every year.

Then they may have been able to explain to you, so you could then explain to us, exactly what it was they were protesting against.

WHAT WAS IT THEY WERE PROTESTING AGAINST?

I think Shirazboobaloo is pointing out that those two paragraphs are making allegations about KS, and attributes these to "an online statement accompanying the campaign". However, it doesn't say exactly who this campaign is run by, or give a link to the source. It's like an opportunity to bash KS.

That is quite sloppy, and reads to me like it was inserted at the end, to ensure the article gave "both sides of the argument". Not that it came from the WH piece.

you say you don't want to silence student demos, so what would you have done?

Explained the difference between a demo and personal harrassment.

This was bullying. They had no reasoned point to make. The university did not dismiss Stock because in the U.K. you cannot just sack people without reason. We have unfair dismissal laws.

I used to teach a 3rd year module that started out pretty much as,

What do you think you know about this subject?
And, how do you think you know that?

The discussions were excellent.

I can't imagine them happening now.

Their protest was pretty much

“I am paying you £9,000 a year. Please dismiss this servant who I do not like”.

Thank you @Gastonia - that was what I was trying to say

I used to run additional workshops for students who wanted to bone up on research methodology etc. Application of Critical Thinking was always a puzzler for a significant minority. That was about 7 years ago, I hate to think how much larger that minority is now!

I hope that Kathleen has good, solid support and access to counselling if she needs it. Watching/listening to her it strikes me that she is recovering (I hope) from trauma.

[quote Leafstamp]Apologies if already posted, but do leave a positive comment for the BBC here - quick and easy and can be anonymous if you wish:

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments[/quote]
Done. Thanks for the prompt.

Julie Bindel interviews Kathleen Stock for unHerd, here.

HoardingSamphireSaurus, I'm genuinely not sure what I am I suggesting that you haven't said. If I'm 'ignoring so much', it because I'm making a very simple point.

Your caps question: "What was it they were protesting against?", well I posted that earlier and can't be arsed to repeat. You talk about critical thinking, well yes - in a nutshell, boiling it down it doesn't actually matter what they were protesting about. What matters is that freedom of speech and demonstrating peaceably is their right.

As to what am I teaching my daughter? Well she'd laugh at that as of course she has her own views, but by engaging with the protesters, I was trying to show her never to assume. To find out as much as you can before you make your mind up. She did that - she listened and still came away thinking they were wrong headed, but.. and crucially I think.. she said she still believed they had a right to demonstrate. I have said repeatedly that I abhor what's happened to Kathleen Stock, but I still think students should be allowed to hold peaceful demos. There. End of. It's late and I'm not posting again. We'll just go round in circles.

What matters is that freedom of speech and demonstrating peaceably is their right

Not when it amounts to harassment of an individual. The point of the protest was to put pressure on the university to sack a member of staff despite there being no grounds to do so.

tonight 222.42/3 on R4 as well.

Just now on The World Tonight on Radio 4, they closed the programme with some sensible statements from Kathleen Stock's interview on WH. No commentary, they just wanted to fit it in as being newsworthy. There are factions in the BBC who are keen to get proper journalism back into the values of the BBC.

And quite a sane article from the Graun: www.theguardian.com/education/2021/nov/03/kathleen-stock-says-she-quit-university-post-over-medieval-ostracism

@SidewaysOtter

I cant help but feel its just a bit too little too late from the BBC / Woman's Hour. Whilst I am glad they are now taking part in the debate , and allowing our voices - we should not be here in the first place.

They finally seem to have learned from Savile/the Pollard report that they cannot hide away from politically difficult subjects. They have a duty to report what’s actually happening, not what is palatable. That said, they absolutely haven’t been at the forefront of this, they’ve hung onto others’ coattails in a cowardly fashion, waiting for the tide to turn before putting their brave pants on. Still, at least they’re going the right way now.

And your messages to Kathleen Stock are the fragrant hiccups of peace and tolerance, are they?

Love that comment, genius!

@Aber77 But the students weren’t being discriminated against by Prof Stock as far as I’ve ever seen, except in their own minds because they feel that even having to hear an opinion they don’t like, never mind engaging with it or respecting it, makes them “feel unsafe”. Which is a deeply childish and fragile mindset that doesn’t bode well for their futures. If they genuinely feel like that then maybe therapy rather than protesting should be their focus, and certainly not hounding an academic from behind the cloak of anonymity. That’s what bullies and cowards do.

"They have a duty to report what’s actually happening, not what is palatable. That said, they absolutely haven’t been at the forefront of this, they’ve hung onto others’ coattails in a cowardly fashion, waiting for the tide to turn before putting their brave pants on."

That's exactly how I see it. They let others take the lead and women take the pain. JK Rowling and many others were brave - I mention her specifically because of her unique public profile that enabled her to cut through and have an impact which we are still seeing now.

That said, I am not convinced that the BBC is actually going the right way now. They are capitalising on this interview, promoting themselves in the practised way of the BBC, making use of their numerous 'platforms' to wave the BBC flag: Look at me! But I question whether they and Emma Barnett are still speaking the language dictated by lobby, notably Stonewall, such as 'assigned gender at birth', 'people who are pregnant' etc, whether they have amended their style guide, whether they are still giving OUR money to dodgy individuals or outfits, whether they are still promoting dangerous ideology to children on their kids' tv programmes, including mangling their girls' growing bodies with bindings, which strikes me as barbaric.

@nauticant

Just now on The World Tonight on Radio 4, they closed the programme with some sensible statements from Kathleen Stock's interview on WH. No commentary, they just wanted to fit it in as being newsworthy. There are factions in the BBC who are keen to get proper journalism back into the values of the BBC.

Time stamp 44:44 www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001154m

@Aber77 "They said they were scared of being singled out by the University." This line of reasoning baffles me. It is an admission that their behaviour is unacceptable. If they had a reasoned argument, there would not be a problem with their presenting it. If one is unable to stand by one's arguments or actions, perhaps one ought to question why one is making them.

The victory post on the demonstrators' instagram account is chilling. One wonders how they will look back on this behaviour once they (hopefully) grow up a bit.

I am somewhat surprised that the university didn't take a harder line on the protestors setting off smoke bombs and plastering posters everywhere. Surely one could argue that those behaviours warrant disciplining from the university. Part of the reason students are there is to learn how to debate and argue, and those behaviours are not that.

@Aber77

Hmm... of course I don't condone violence or intimidation and I fully support Kathleen Stock, but not all the protestors are extremists. The demonstrator we spoke to felt let down by their university and felt they needed to protest to be heard. They didn't condone violence or intimidation - they were very clear that was wrong and they hated being associated with it. They stressed they were peacefully demonstrating and just wanted the University to provide a fair hearing. I thought it was naive and ill judged, but I really didn't see anything like mob rule. We're all rightly furious for Kathleen Stock, but if you silence student demos when there's no evidence of violence or threat present that's a very dangerous road.

The demonstrations in one form or another have been going on for 3 years. Taking one small snapshot of this 3 year long smear campaign, believing this one individual is scared of repercussions when there have been zero sanctions over that 3 years then extrapolating the demonstration was fine is laughable.

This is mob rule backed by the student Union. The university only started to pay attention after the Maya Forstater ruling a few months ago. Did you miss all of the other ways she was hounded out?

I would think what your dd learned from this experience is that a) you will support her if she decides to put men’s feelz before her own and b) she will be branded a terf and hounded out of university if she doesn’t toe the line.

Doesn’t that matter at all to you seeing as you support Prof Stock?

I would think what your dd learned from this experience is that a) you will support her if she decides to put men’s feelz before her own and b) she will be branded a terf and hounded out of university if she doesn’t toe the line.

I doubt that this is true because aber77 has said they both support Stock.

Again (stuck record!), I think what they aren’t seeing is the difference between right to protest and right to personal attack.

The university had no grounds to sack Stock, so the students resorted to other means, which, looking at recent Twitter posts, they believe were successful.

The people who were wearing masks didn’t want to be ‘singled out’ weren’t making a principled stand, they just didn’t want to be subject to the rules of the university.