I'm curious how this "statutory duty to freedom of speech" works, considering this is someone spewing racist pseudoscience (if it even reaches the level of pseudoscience). They've also been suspended from academic institutions multiple times. And "may" have caused the suicide of another academic.

Even ignoring the duty of care to students and the "inclusive, welcoming environment" commitment they allege they have... What value is there in debating obviously wrong ideas?

If some professor firmly believed gravity isn't real and the Earth is flat, would that be worth hearing out in an academic context? What value is that to students? "Here's how you debate someone with ingrained ignorance/stupidity"? There are plenty of other ways to do that - use recordings, role play, go out to a (free) event of theirs.

And I've even charitably assumed this is an event where some debate will take place...

You know what? I think this is justified usage. The average person won't have a good way to interpret joules or watts, especially on the 16-18 gigawatt scale. Props they include the actual number in the article btw.

Things do go a bit downhill from there admittedly.

I should clarify: in universe, not the writing or craziness.

Yeah, logged in this morning just to check. Didn't play a mission so can't say there aren't any issues, but EAC doesn't just forbid you from playing.

I was talking about this same idea with a friend recently. We have orgs like GCHQ and there's plenty of cybersecurity and data talent in the UK. The government could make our own actual, secure systems. Provide setup and support for non-gov entities in the UK if they want to have government-approved security for a fee if we need the funding.

Plenty of options for the details in terms of finances, open-sourcing, letting (vetted) private healthcare users connect, etc.

There's no need to always put things out for private companies to make.

Ok, at this point I have to ask: did I miss some news about someone saying they'd call the next GE early? Otherwise it's about 2.5 years away, and we're talking polls, coalitions, and promises from Labour about electoral reform and revisiting Brexit already.

I'd like to see more news about what is being planned before the next election.

I don't want to put words in their mouth or explain away what they said, so I will quote Wikipedia:

They said that their reference to the demonisation of rape concerned stereotypes surrounding perpetrators, arguing that rapists did not necessarily conform to a particular image and that such stereotypes could prevent victims from being believed, going on to explain that their reference to a spectrum concerned what they regarded as narrow legal and societal definitions of rape and sexual violence.

Which is based on a Telegraph article:

“The point I made about demonisation was that not all rapists fit a stereotype, and that all kinds of men can and do commit it.

“The vast majority of sexual violence is from men who the victims know personally. Victims should be believed regardless of who the perpetrator was, and rapists should be punished in the strongest terms.

“When talking about a spectrum I was making the point that laws often take a narrow definition of what rape and sexual violence is, which often allows it to continue without consequence. A full viewing of the interview clarifies this.

“In a country where rape has the lowest conviction rates of any crime, and reoffending continues, this is an urgent and important conversation we need to have in Scotland. Any suggestion that my statements minimise or excuse rape or sexual assault are deeply false and misleading.”

My personal impression would be this is getting at things like marital rape, but it's not clarified further here, and I don't have time to watch a full interview.

At face value though, all I get from this is they didn't mean anything malicious and they are definitely not a rape apologist, which is what a lot of the discourse around the topic seems to suggest.

As a side note: they are non-binary and use they/them pronouns.

Ok, that's my bad. Commenting after being unable to sleep much overnight leads to mistakes.

The Edinburgh-based former writer and academic said there was a "myth of the monster rapist" and "a demonisation of rape in the sense of it is a spectrum".

They continued: "It is a spectrum, none of which is any less or worse, but it is a spectrum of things that constitute one homogenised word 'rape'".

Manivannan went on to argue that the idea of a rapist as a "big burly man" was understandably a source of fear.

But the MSP told Rajasekaran that "any individual is capable of rape, including yourself and me, and I think that scary thought is the hardest to contend with".

Source: BBC

Delicate topic that requires more careful wording, but to me it doesn't sound like they were intending to downplay anything. That is also the claim made later during their apology.

I wonder if John Cleese - who has in the past few years gone down the rabbit hole of becoming a pretty hardcore right-winger and JK Rowling/transphobe supporter, - might be a bit prejudiced against Manivannan. I also wonder why his recent history is not brought up in the article. Why is he even relevant to rector proceedings in a Scottish university?

The Prime Minister has said all options are on the table for the UK’s future relationship with Europe – after the next election – and pro-EU MPs have seized on the momentum.

Like electoral reform, after the next election. That's up to 3 years away. I hope they do something meaningful in the meantime, whether that's laying groundwork or making some vital (and needed) reforms in other places.

Agree, if anything this is a win. Actually taking the seat would've been an upset, so getting within 13% (and clear second) shows the Greens and Polanski are winning people over, despite what anyone might claim.

I don't know about that. If they still continue receiving support - and the outcome here shows they are in fact still popular, almost enough to challenge Labour, - then I don't think it'll be as big of a deal-breaker as some politicians and the media are making it out to be.

Parties work with all sorts of right-wingers and known creeps all over, an anti-Israel/genocide stance will be tolerable. The media will blast it for a while, the main question is only if it'll put them out of contention with the electorate.