[BigFudamental]

Does anyone know if there are PWF machines anywhere in the maths village?

[Blaah Blaah]

He's not being punished for exercising his right to free speech, he's being punished for disgracing the University. It's not that he took part in a protest, but that he was at the forefront of disrespectful nonsense in a very public arena. There is the possibility that this will have a negative effect by discouraging legitimate protest, but that is not the reason for the University's actions. If you say the punishment is too harsh then there is a discussion to be had, but too many people are conflating that with the suggestion that he is innocent, that his protest's "non-violence" made it entirely acceptable.

I still don't understand where the 7 terms has come from though. Surely if they feel that strongly they may as well kick him out entirely (since as pointed out above this effectively destroys his PhD).

Also, why is he the only one being punished? I assume he was the writer, organiser, and primary speaker, but that's not clearly recognised anywhere.

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by alex_hk90)
In that case this should probably be taken into account.

Only probably? This seems pretty clear cut. Why are you hesitant?

(Original post by alex_hk90)
It's not about reading a poem, it's about denying the right of free speech to another person (a guest of the university) and also in doing so damaging the reputation of the university. In football they have something called "bringing the game into disrepute" and that is part of the issue here. There are also the rights of the people who came to listen to the speech to consider. I don't actually know the content of Willett's speech, but that really is missing the point (provided that the content was not illegal i.e. inciting hatred or similar).

See the article I linked jarvis to for my thoughts on the freedom of speech issue. As to 'disrepute', I'm extremely sceptical that the reputation of Cambridge could suffer, even marginally, through a small number of its students making a political demonstration. Political demonstrations are common. Everyone in society is accustomed to the fact that they happen from time to time, and that students often get involved with them. Nobody would mistake the demonstration as representing the actual institution in any way. And if the University's ego is so astonishingly fragile that they need to destroy someone's life in response, then they frankly need to grow up big time.

Overall I can't understand why other students are so bothered by 'disrepute'. harr said that the protester's behaviour was 'disgraceful'.
I'm quite confused by this. Willetts has behaved like an incompetent and rather stupid muppet for all his time in office. In comparison, what the protesters did doesn't seem disgraceful to the same degree.
And as I have already challenged the idea that the protester's behaviour would be seen as a reflection of the University, I can't see how their behaviour has anything to do with other students even if it was disgraceful.
I think most people, whatever their feelings about protest, are far more embarrassed by the University's reaction to the poem reader and what it says about the institution, than they were by the actual protest.
I certainly am. To everyone else in the country it looks like an incredibly childish tantrum, and condemns Cambridge even further into their image as an elitist, stuffy, authoritarian and old-fashioned bunch of dons with little handle on the real world.
I certainly don't want Cambridge to come across like that, but in this ruling they've confirmed everybody's worst impressions.

(Original post by alex_hk90)
I have no problem with peaceful protest, but it should be done with the minimum of disruption to others. We've gone down this path before and I've made clear that I feel that if people really care about an issue they should take constructive action which the system actually does allow, instead of just messing around disrupting the lives of others.

I don't see how they can. I also don't see how any kind of resistance movement can ever build without publicity. There can be a high number of people objecting to something and wanting it to change, but if a way is not found to gather them together and attract their attention, no joint action will be possible, which is necessary for achieving any change.

Also the kind of disruptions we've seen have been very minor. The people involved did their best, at Cambridge, to communicate with others' whose space they were using and to keep it clean and tidy (thinking back to the Palestine occupation). The disruption to other students was very minor, whereas the strong anger, hatred, condescension etc which protesters received from other students seemed to suggest some sort of strong, violent emotional reaction to their behaviour that I really can't understand or fathom. There must be something other than the actual inconvenience which bothers people, frankly. Otherwise the comments/attitudes/feelings expressed in reaction would be very disproportionate to the inconvenience caused.

[Y__]

(Original post by BigFudamental)
Does anyone know if there are PWF machines anywhere in the maths village?

If by 'maths village' you mean the CMS: Yes, there are PWF machines both in the Library basement (round building) and in GL.04 (also labeled 'CATAM' room).

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by jjarvis)
In response to your edit, cheers, I will take a look at the article this weekend if I can. Bear in mind I'm used to reading hundreds of pages of sometimes very abstract analytic argument--including on these issues!

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you would struggle. Only the last people I showed it to (a lawyer and an economist) both criticised it as being 'very poorly written' and 'a mess', whereas I'd really liked it. I put it down to their being unfamiliar with writing conventions in analytic philosophy, since it seemed very clear and systematic to me

[tommm]

Cambridge > the Church of England

[alex_hk90]

(Original post by Craghyrax)
Only probably? This seems pretty clear cut. Why are you hesitant?

I am hesitant because it may be difficult for the university to fashion a punishment that would be an effective deterrent but didn't also hinder his academic career.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
See the article I linked jarvis to for my thoughts on the freedom of speech issue. As to 'disrepute', I'm extremely sceptical that the reputation of Cambridge could suffer, even marginally, through a small number of its students making a political demonstration. Political demonstrations are common. Everyone in society is accustomed to the fact that they happen from time to time, and that students often get involved with them. Nobody would mistake the demonstration as representing the actual institution in any way. And if the University's ego is so astonishingly fragile that they need to destroy someone's life in response, then they frankly need to grow up big time.

I'll get back to you on the article when I've read it (you said it was quite long).

And I disagree that it will not harm the reputation of the university, at least to the people who happen to come across the story and/or the video. As I mentioned, the response may be a little heavy-handed but generally I feel the culture in the country has moved too far the other way in terms of leniency, so I would tend to favour the harsher punishment when it is debatable.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
Overall I can't understand why other students are so bothered by 'disrepute'. harr said that the protester's behaviour was 'disgraceful'.
I'm quite confused by this. Willetts has behaved like an incompetent and rather stupid muppet for all his time in office. In comparison, what the protesters did doesn't seem disgraceful to the same degree.
And as I have already challenged the idea that the protester's behaviour would be seen as a reflection of the University, I can't see how their behaviour has anything to do with other students even if it was disgraceful.

What's so hard to understand? People have pride and a sense of belonging to their university, and when they see one of their members damaging that there are understandably disappointed and perhaps even upset.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
I think most people, whatever their feelings about protest, are far more embarrassed by the University's reaction to the poem reader and what it says about the institution, than they were by the actual protest.
I certainly am. To everyone else in the country it looks like an incredibly childish tantrum, and condemns Cambridge even further into their image as an elitist, stuffy, authoritarian and old-fashioned bunch of dons with little handle on the real world.
I certainly don't want Cambridge to come across like that, but in this ruling they've confirmed everybody's worst impressions.

I disagree and instead see it as the 'poem reader' (i.e. unnecessarily disruptive protester) being the childish one.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
I don't see how they can. I also don't see how any kind of resistance movement can ever build without publicity. There can be a high number of people objecting to something and wanting it to change, but if a way is not found to gather them together and attract their attention, no joint action will be possible, which is necessary for achieving any change.

Clearly this form of protest is ineffective as I don't think the message or purpose of it has been mentioned once. Maybe if I knew what this person wanted to achieve I could suggest ways he might go about doing so in the proper manner.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
Also the kind of disruptions we've seen have been very minor. The people involved did their best, at Cambridge, to communicate with others' whose space they were using and to keep it clean and tidy (thinking back to the Palestine occupation). The disruption to other students was very minor, whereas the strong anger, hatred, condescension etc which protesters received from other students seemed to suggest some sort of strong, violent emotional reaction to their behaviour that I really can't understand or fathom. There must be something other than the actual inconvenience which bothers people, frankly. Otherwise the comments/attitudes/feelings expressed in reaction would be very disproportionate to the inconvenience caused.

I remember the Palestine occupation and was annoyed that we couldn't have lectures in our normal room as they had occupied it, so I'm happy to take that as an example. In this case, I actually more or less supported their pro-Palestinian stance, but if anything the protest made me less sympathetic to their cause. I wouldn't have objected to them setting up on the field in the Sidgwick Site to spread the word to those going to lectures, but actually preventing all of us having our lectures was unnecessary and counter-productive.

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by alex_hk90)
I am hesitant because it may be difficult for the university to fashion a punishment that would be an effective deterrent but didn't also hinder his academic career.

I can't agree with that because I don't see the need for a deterrant. They are deterring people from protesting, which is undemocratic.

And I disagree that it will not harm the reputation of the university, at least to the people who happen to come across the story and/or the video.

What harm will there be, and why is this alleged harm so problematic that it should be more important than effecting a political change that is in the majority of the country's best interests?

As I mentioned, the response may be a little heavy-handed but generally I feel the culture in the country has moved too far the other way in terms of leniency, so I would tend to favour the harsher punishment when it is debatable.

That is an extremely vague suggestion. Please explain in what way you think the country has become too lenient. What are you comparing its current leniancy to? Given that 60% of the population think that capital punishment ought to be reinstated, I am very sceptical that the British attitude towards law breaking is in any way 'lenient'.

What's so hard to understand? People have pride and a sense of belonging to their university, and when they see one of their members damaging that there are understandably disappointed and perhaps even upset.

As I said, I don't believe that the behaviour of some protesters can in any way affect the whole reputation of the University of Cambridge. So if people are feeling embarrassed, I think they are feeling it completely unecessarily.

I disagree and instead see it as the 'poem reader' (i.e. unnecessarily disruptive protester) being the childish one.

If he was childish, then what is that to you? It hasn't affected your life in any way. I don't think people's careers ought to be ruined just because they mildly irritate other people.

Clearly this form of protest is ineffective as I don't think the message or purpose of it has been mentioned once.

Whether the form of protest is effective or not is a seperate question to whether the protester ought to be prevented from doing his PhD as punishment.

Maybe if I knew what this person wanted to achieve I could suggest ways he might go about doing so in the proper manner.

Can you please explain what 'the proper manner' is? I already explained that there are few ways that somebody can effectively develop any kind of political resistance without succeeding in attracting public attention.

I remember the Palestine occupation and was annoyed that we couldn't have lectures in our normal room as they had occupied it, so I'm happy to take that as an example. In this case, I actually more or less supported their pro-Palestinian stance, but if anything the protest made me less sympathetic to their cause. I wouldn't have objected to them setting up on the field in the Sidgwick Site to spread the word to those going to lectures, but actually preventing all of us having our lectures was unnecessary and counter-productive.

I'm sorry, but I think people very spoilt if just having to move to a different room in the same building is enough prevocation to merit the incredibly insulting comments and reaction which the occupiers in that movement faced, and the welcoming of heavy handed punishments from the University.

My point is that people over react disproportionally to the inconveniences they experience. This suggests that it can't just be moving to a different room which bugs people, but something more deep seated.

[smilepea]

Also guys we have a university court presided over by a high court judge. Like WTF?! It seems Cambridge will never stop surprising me.

[alex_hk90]

(Original post by Craghyrax)
What harm will there be, and why is this alleged harm so problematic that it should be more important than effecting a political change that is in the majority of the country's best interests?

Again it's not about the cause, it's about the method used to promote it. It may even be that I agree with the cause, I really don't know.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
That is an extremely vague suggestion. Please explain in what way you think the country has become too lenient. What are you comparing its current leniancy to? Given that 60% of the population think that capital punishment ought to be reinstated, I am very sceptical that the British attitude towards law breaking is in any way 'lenient'.

Lenient in terms of the sentences actually given out and served. Which your statistic on bringing back capital punishment would seem to support.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
As I said, I don't believe that the behaviour of some protesters can in any way affect the whole reputation of the University of Cambridge. So if people are feeling embarrassed, I think they are feeling it completely unecessarily.

It might be unnecessary, but it is understandable. In the same way that if someone else you had a connection with (i.e. family, friends, colleagues, etc.) did something like that you might feel embarrassed as a result.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
If he was childish, then what is that to you? It hasn't affected your life in any way. I don't think people's careers ought to be ruined just because they mildly irritate other people.

Sometimes an example needs to be made. If they keep on giving lenient punishments to avoid damaging academic careers then there will be no disincentive to this kind of behaviour in the future. Hence the 'probably' you pointed out earlier. Of course, since you don't see the need for a deterrent we'll definitely be disagreeing on this point.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
Whether the form of protest is effective or not is a seperate question to whether the protester ought to be prevented from doing his PhD as punishment.

This is true, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of the protest.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
Can you please explain what 'the proper manner' is? I already explained that there are few ways that somebody can effectively develop any kind of political resistance without succeeding in attracting public attention.

As I said, I need to know what the aim is before being able to suggest a way of achieving it. If it is political change then you'd first look at, well, getting into politics - becoming an MP, starting a political party, etc. If the majority are truly behind you then you should be able to get them to vote you in, or at worst you'll force the main parties to adopt your policies so that you don't win. Luckily we live in a country where there are ways to actually get things done, and as such I encourage people who really want to effect change to use them rather than just whining and disrupting the lives of others.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
I'm sorry, but I think people very spoilt if just having to move to a different room in the same building is enough prevocation to merit the incredibly insulting comments and reaction which the occupiers in that movement faced, and the welcoming of heavy handed punishments from the University.

My point is that people over react disproportionally to the inconveniences they experience. This suggests that it can't just be moving to a different room which bugs people, but something more deep seated.

Obviously it's not just having to move to a different room, it's because they're unnecessarily and pointlessly inconvenienced - yes it's no big deal having the lecture elsewhere, but it's the principle of people making your life more difficult for no good reason (as I mentioned, the form of protest appeared to be ineffective and perhaps even counter-productive).

Anyway, I'm going to bed soon as I need to wake up early tomorrow morning for a weekend trip. As such, I might not be able to reply until Sunday evening. Have a nice weekend CamChat!

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by alex_hk90)
And I disagree that it will not harm the reputation of the university, at least to the people who happen to come across the story and/or the video. As I mentioned, the response may be a little heavy-handed but generally I feel the culture in the country has moved too far the other way in terms of leniency, so I would tend to favour the harsher punishment when it is debatable.

This is a very common misconception of the British justice system. England and Wales is currently one of the harshest punishers in the Western world. People generally don't have a clue how sentencing works and even less understand the effects of punishment. In recent studies, 75% of the public think we sentence too leniently. In the same breath, when given scenarios and asked to sentence, over 66% of *the same people* sentenced more leniently than an average judge would. This has been a consistent finding.

People misunderstand crime stats (which are vague and difficult to use and basically have almost no value), read about the odd case in the paper, read what the media has said (when the media has often misunderstood itself!) and so the government responds by harsher sentencing which increases prison population which then requires the government to respond by trying to cut sentences which the public suddenly object to.

[Tortious]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
This is a very common misconception of the British justice system. England and Wales is currently one of the harshest punishers in the Western world. People generally don't have a clue how sentencing works and even less understand the effects of punishment. In recent studies, 75% of the public think we sentence too leniently. In the same breath, when given scenarios and asked to sentence, over 66% of *the same people* sentenced more leniently than an average judge would. This has been a consistent finding.

People misunderstand crime stats (which are vague and difficult to use and basically have almost no value), read about the odd case in the paper, read what the media has said (when the media has often misunderstood itself!) and so the government responds by harsher sentencing which increases prison population which then requires the government to respond by trying to cut sentences which the public suddenly object to.

Oh no, it's CSPS - aaahhhhhh!

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by Tortious)
Oh no, it's CSPS - aaahhhhhh!

Also one of only 3 topics I understood - sentencing, punishment, media and stats really interested me and I suspect I would have done better in the paper if I hadn't been so fascinated by these topics that I spent ages reading about them

[BigFudamental]

(Original post by Y__)
If by 'maths village' you mean the CMS: Yes, there are PWF machines both in the Library basement (round building) and in GL.04 (also labeled 'CATAM' room).

Thanks! Never realised B&GM Library had a basement.

[Chubasco]

(Original post by alex_hk90)


It's not about reading a poem, it's about denying the right of free speech to another person (a guest of the university) and also in doing so damaging the reputation of the university. In football they have something called "bringing the game into disrepute" and that is part of the issue here. There are also the rights of the people who came to listen to the speech to consider. I don't actually know the content of Willett's speech, but that really is missing the point (provided that the content was not illegal i.e. inciting hatred or similar).

See, the major problem I have with the bringing the university into disrepute argument is that several academics have been found guilty of child pornography offences in the past few years, but have received no sanction from the university, despite such an offence arguably bringing the university into disrepute (for example, when a Fellow of my college was found guilty of child porn offences and given a fine and a suspended sentence, the case was widely reported in the press, and applications to the college, especially to that specific subject, understandably declined the following year). So it seems unfair to punish someone for something which is less harmful than that.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what CDE say, I didn't agree with their disrupting the Willetts protest, as I feel that it would have been both fairer and more effective to allow him to speak and then challenge his arguments. However, I think that the punishment handed out is massively disproportionate and will discourage peaceful protest (which is an important part of free speech).

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
This is a very common misconception of the British justice system. England and Wales is currently one of the harshest punishers in the Western world. People generally don't have a clue how sentencing works and even less understand the effects of punishment. In recent studies, 75% of the public think we sentence too leniently. In the same breath, when given scenarios and asked to sentence, over 66% of *the same people* sentenced more leniently than an average judge would. This has been a consistent finding.

I suspected this was the case, but couldn't remember any supporting facts off the top of my head

People misunderstand crime stats (which are vague and difficult to use and basically have almost no value), read about the odd case in the paper, read what the media has said (when the media has often misunderstood itself!) and so the government responds by harsher sentencing which increases prison population which then requires the government to respond by trying to cut sentences which the public suddenly object to.

Are you doing the Criminology option for final year? Its shared with Sociology, so I had some friends who did it.

(Original post by Crazy_emz)
See, the major problem I have with the bringing the university into disrepute argument is that several academics have been found guilty of child pornography offences in the past few years, but have received no sanction from the university, despite such an offence arguably bringing the university into disrepute (for example, when a Fellow of my college was found guilty of child porn offences and given a fine and a suspended sentence, the case was widely reported in the press, and applications to the college, especially to that specific subject, understandably declined the following year). So it seems unfair to punish someone for something which is less harmful than that.

[harr]

After careful consideration of Craghyrax's points I have decided to shout at her until she goes away.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
And I think that you and harr are mistaken if you think that someone reading a poem is such a terrible threat and problem to society that requires deterring.

I have no objection to someone reading a poem (though I'd prefer if it were a good one). I have no objection to someone reading a poem to David Willetts, even if he doesn't want to hear it. What I do object to is someone completely disrupting an event, wasting the time and money of those organising it and ruining it for those attending.

Read the poem outside. Send it to a newspaper. Hand out copies to everyone attending. Just don't act as if other people don't matter. I'm not saying that protests should never inconvenience anyone, but the level of disruption was completely inappropriate.

Clearly neither of you are particularly supportive of democracy if you are so strongly offended by about the most placid and peaceful means of civic protest to be found. [...]
None of these possibilities adequately explain why the University or any other authority is mandated to react in such an authoritarian and fascist manner.

Based upon the poll, a strong punishment (the one that the University apparently wanted) would be the democratic choice.

What's not obviously democratic to me is to force others to listen to you rather than the people to whom they want to listen.

(Original post by Craghyrax)
Overall I can't understand why other students are so bothered by 'disrepute'. harr said that the protester's behaviour was 'disgraceful'.
I'm quite confused by this. Willetts has behaved like an incompetent and rather stupid muppet for all his time in office. In comparison, what the protesters did doesn't seem disgraceful to the same degree.

I'm not making a judgment on the relative disgracefulness of Willetts and the protest, just the disgracefulness of the protest. (And I'm not particularly bothered by the disrepute thing.)

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by Craghyrax)
I suspected this was the case, but couldn't remember any supporting facts off the top of my head

Are you doing the Criminology option for final year? Its shared with Sociology, so I had some friends who did it.

I did it last year. Very much enjoyed it until I discovered my supervisor had taught us topics not on the syllabus and I had 1 week to fit in learning a new topic around my revision

[smilepea]

Huzzar! My friend from home has a Cambridge PhD offer with funding! Mucho excitement! (he's also an astrophysicist) And he's put caius as his first choice college

[jjarvis]

Hey all, anybody here with any experience with the Samsung Galaxy S2 or the HTC Desire S? I've played with both a bit in the store, and am inclined towards the S2, but obviously I haven't had a chance to play with them on any extended basis. In line for a mobile upgrade, want to get an android (currently have a blackberry), and trying to decide which one. The Nexus contracts are a bit pricey for me, gorgeous though the phone looks.