You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This is worrying - experts in their field being blocked from speaking publicly about their expert field as they have criticised other government policies.
Wasn't sure if it fitted with one of the politics threads or needed it's own
BBC News - Weapons expert cut from government event due to Twitter posts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65675247
I always like to spin these things and see if I feel the same. If he had legal but very far right views would I feel different about his 'cancelling'....
If he had legal but very far right views would I feel different about his ‘cancelling’….
To speak about AI, or weapons tech? Has no relevance to their politics, so as a person I might think something about them but it wouldn't affect their expertise.
Presumably a " balancd discussion" is one where everybody has to agree with the status quo?
always like to spin these things and see if I feel the same. If he had legal but very far right views would I feel different about his ‘cancelling’….
If his views are legal, and he's not being asked to discuss them anyway, I'd be equally concerned.
Which important experts will be ignored and knowledge lost in their field because the government didn't like being criticised by them.
If his views are legal, and he’s not being asked to discuss them anyway, I’d be equally concerned.
I'm not saying I don't agree. But to play it completely out.....what if his views on non relevant issues were illegal? Or there was some particularly antisocial crime in his past, on the sex offenders register maybe. Would an 'important expert' and 'knowledge lost in their field' be right and proper then?
But in this case - feels like the death throws of a toxic unpopular government scrabbling to manage the unmanageable.
Being a sex offender doesn't prevent you being an expert on weapons who might have something important to say on that subject.
Forget all that, the biggest crime here is the BBC reporter using disinvited. Surely the correct word is uninvited.
Surely the correct word is uninvited.
uninvited would be to turn up without invitation - a gate crasher for instance. Disinvite means he has been invited and it’s then been rescinded. He’d only be ‘uninvited’ if having been invited, then disinvited he then turned up anyway.
Journalists need to do some work and ask for a list of "all" those experts rejected for explicitly supporting government views, too - in the interests of a balanced discussion 'n'that
The American, who has been based in the UK for the past 13 years, told BBC Two's Newsnight he was "outraged" that the government's trawl through his Twitter account - on which he poked fun at Liz Truss, expressed anti-Brexit views and criticised asylum policy - means he can no longer share his knowledge with delegates from the government, industry, academia and armed forces.
I can’t see any reason at all why the government might take such measures…🙄
Being a sex offender doesn’t prevent you being an expert on weapons who might have something important to say on that subject.
Interesting - because that combination does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
All very 1984 isn't it.
I'm guessing that the end goal is that experts who disagree with government policies that actually sit within their area of expertise will be disinvited too.
I’m guessing that the end goal is that experts who disagree with government policies that actually sit within their area of expertise will be disinvited too.
What could possibly go wrong....
what if his views on non relevant issues were illegal?
What are "illegal views"?
What could possibly go wrong...
Another 13 years of tory rule, roll back of protections for the people and the planet, more gerrymandering, changes to how the constitution is structured, more tame judges.
All Hail To Our Great Leaders. *Clicks heels* *Salutes*
Sorry _your_ great leaders.
Nah, it'll never happen.
What are “illegal views”?
Good point - was typing tired.
What I was thinking was someone who was both a notable expert on say AI but was also a vocal and outspoken proponent of eugenics and the eradication of inferior races by any means (inc violent).
But to be fair, I'm pulling the thread in an unnecessary direction nothing to do with the actual story.
We also have the BBC disinformation service! So now 'they' want to tell you what to think. It's all going a bit 1984 isn't it?!
Who fact checks the fact checkers?!
There is absolutely no way on earth that this could possibly be manipulated to suit an agenda is there?! 🙄
We also have the BBC disinformation service! So now ‘they’ want to tell you what to think. It’s all going a bit 1984 isn’t it?!
Who fact checks the fact checkers?!
There is absolutely no way on earth that this could possibly be manipulated to suit an agenda is there?! 🙄
So your saying the bbc made it up?
Or is my humour detection failing?
Actual text of Gov't email to him:
"Rules introduced by the Cabinet Office in 2022 specify that the social media accounts of potential speakers must be vetted before final acceptance to the programme. The vetting is impartial and purely evidence-based.
"The check on your social media has identified material that criticises government officials and policy. It is for this reason and not because we do not value your technical insight, that I'm afraid that we have no choice and must cancel your invitation to the CWD conference."
He said in response:
"I'm a critic of the government's policy on homelessness and asylum seekers. Why that should have any impact whatsoever on whether or not I can speak to a technical conference in my own area of expertise. That's Stalinist."