University Debating Society Bans Reform MP From Giving Talk to “Keep Hate Out”
The debating society of Bangor University has banned Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin from speaking to students, saying it is taking a “stand against Reform UK” and “keeping hate out of our universities”. The Telegraph has the story.
Bangor University’s debating and political society refused to host an event with Sarah Pochin, MP for Runcorn and Helsby, claiming that it was “keeping hate out of our universities”.
The university insisted it was “politically neutral and supports freedom of speech” and said it had no role in the society’s decision.
Universities are required to “promote the importance” of free speech by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
Pochin had planned to visit the university with Jack Anderton, a party adviser who is touring universities to speak to students.
But the society declined to welcome them to the Welsh university because of claimed “racism, transphobia, or homophobia displayed by the members of Reform UK”.
A spokesman said: “The Debating & Political Society received a request from Jack Anderton and Sarah Pochin MP of Reform UK to attend Bangor University and give a Q&A to students. In line with our values, this request was refused.
“We stand by this decision as a committee. We have zero tolerance for any form of racism, transphobia or homophobia displayed by the members of Reform UK. Their approach to the lives of others is antithetical to the values of welcoming and fair debate that our society has upheld for 177 years.
“We are proud to be the first of the debating unions to take a stand against Reform UK. We strongly implore our fellow societies to join us in keeping hate out of our universities.”
Pochin said: “So much for free speech in our universities. How can Bangor University’s debating society be afraid of debate?”
Prof James Orr, a senior adviser to Nigel Farage added: “The decision by a ‘debating and politics’ society at Bangor University to ban a Member of Parliament from speaking on its premises is a disgrace.
“In a crowded field, it’s the worst breach of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 I have ever come across.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A surprise to no one.
similarly the failure of the Electoral Commission to require the University to register as a campaign organisation is no surprise. No doubt more of this running up to 2037 or 2029.
When I was involved in the running of a student union back in the 1960s our advice was that societies were partuy of tghe Univdrsity – branches oof it. On that basis my Uni exercised copntrols over the activities of the unioin and its student societies and appointed and paid the accountant.
Take your mittens off, EB
Or take more water with it.
Much sooner than that. Bangor is in Wales; the Welsh parliamentary elections are this year.
Bangor University’s “debating” society should change its name to the Bangor University Censoring & Anti-Debating Society. What a pathetic bunch of quivering snowflakes. The University Authorities are (unsurprisingly) a disgrace to the Higher Education ‘industry’. They should have insisted that the visit by Pochin must go ahead and suspended any students attempting to stop it.
They empathise with grooming gangs, trans haters and terrorists, anyone who speaks out against these monsters is a racist. I wonder what Orwell would have to say about such twisted logic.
But the term to describe this kind of behaviour is, “Suicidal Empathy”.
How weird is it that Free Speech went to the Higher Education/University sector to die!? And, is the morally repugnant Apparatchik Starmer now going to update his self righteous advice to PDJT?
What do we expect of these New Dark Age marxo-fascist anti-universities? Free speech? Open debate? Open-minded investigation? The pursuit of objective truth? These things are long gone from our “universities”.
Looks to me they are ‘Keeping Hate in’, the hatred they have for everyone who doesn’t think like they do. If this is the level of undergraduates they turn out, you might as well send them home this afternoon, turn the lights off and lock the doors. What a waste of time it would be to go there to learn.
I would take it up with the President of ‘UnDeb’ at Bangor: Stuart Perris. He’s your man. How many’s that now? Those inconvenient facts and contradictory evidence just keep on coming, eh?
”The President of the Bangor Union Society holds a central leadership role within the organization, serving as both the public face and the primary coordinator of the society’s activities. As the head of the executive team, the President is responsible for setting the strategic vision of the society, ensuring that all initiatives align with its mission and values. This includes overseeing events, programs, and outreach efforts designed to foster community engagement, support members, and promote the society’s goals.
One of the President’s key duties is presiding over meetings of the Union Society, guiding discussions, facilitating decision-making, and ensuring that all voices are heard.”
https://www.undebbangor.com/debating-political-society/president
I love that phrase at the end of the job description: “… ensuring that all voices are heard.” Presumably, that means all voices belong to those on the left of politics?
Ah, but the trouble is they already know that Reform doesn’t have voices – they just foam at the mouth and gnash their teeth whilst pursuing all non-whites and so on with a noose whilst muttering strangled oaths. It’s entirely in keeping with their standards that such maniacs don’t get a platform.
Reform have spoken actual words
Mogwai The Student Union ( Undeb Myfyrwyr ) officials were complete f-tard in the 1970s when I studied at UCNW ( Univ Coll of North Wales) Obsessed about the grievances of the Palestinians over Israel, at least one of the officials was a Lebanese Palestinian. I remember what I considered to be rational ( now conservative ) voices being shouted down then. Do these people even know what ‘irony’ is ? From their website : National debating and politicsIn 1947 we merged with the Wranglers’ and Political Societies to form the Debating & Political Society. From the 1960s through the 1990s, university debating became increasingly competitive across the UK. Bangor students joined national tournaments, hosted events, and adopted new formats such as British Parliamentary style. Today, that legacy continues with us — the university’s oldest and largest non-subject society. For generations, it has served as a training ground for argument, leadership, and civic engagement, helping students develop confidence, clarity, and communication skills that carry into every field of life. Where we are todayThe Debating & Political Society continues to balance three aims: providing a welcoming space to learn public speaking and critical thinking, supporting competitive teams on the national and international stage,… Read more »
yeah at least at Leeds University i was able to listen to Arthur Scargill, Kenneth Clarke and Edwina Curry (ok a pretty piss poor tally on my behalf given I was there 5 years – though I might add I also got to see Joe Strummer being egged by a vegan for wearing a leather jacket on the lawns of the student union)
From the website of the Bangor Debating & Political Society – “Join a legacy of intellectual curiosity.”
A debating society so curious it bans the political party leading the opinion polls from debating.
Presumably “intellectual curiosity” at Bangor is dead, hence the “legacy”.
If this “debating society” thinks the best way to win an argument is to deny the opposition a chance to speak, then what they’re doing is:
and
For “debating society” read “echo chamber”.
Not only is this a win for Reform, helping them to cement their contention that free speech is dying in this country and kind of proving their point… It’s also a loss for Bangor University, demonstrating they are dim-witted enough to assume that true Conservative values are nothing but hatred and bigotry.
Freedom, Right, Licence.
The problem today is few know the difference, like few know what culture is, or that same sex marriage cannot be a Right since marriage is a licence from the State.
Freedom (negative/passive) to have/do something – nobody can legally deprive you of it unless it interferes with the freedom of others.
Right (positive/active) – a legal obligation on someone, usually the State, to provide/protect something.
Licence – requires permission, so cannot be a freedom or Right.
Freedom of speech means nobody can legally prevent you speaking, but it is not a Right (active) whereby somebody has a legal obligation to provide you with the opportunity or a platform to speak.
The debating society is free to choose who is involved in its debates and has no obligation to invite or accept any speaker.
Regrettable as their behaviour is, this is not a free speech issue, it is a private property issue – their house, their rules. On the other hand, never waste your time trying to change the minds of anyone who doesn’t want to change their mind.
It’s strange then that the mention of freedom of speech comes from the society itself. So perhaps they should amend their policy statement to say that they do not support freedom of speech.
Or, rather, that they support freedom of speech for those whose values align with those of the society.
Once again, ‘permitted speech’, would be more appropriate here because this is, in fact, the reality. Same as it is across most contexts, actually, including this site.
“We are proponents of free speech, but only on the condition that we get to censor whatever we want and feel is necessary in order to uphold this illusion.” That’s more like it.
I’m actually getting pig sick of the amount of people all over the shop who profess to be pro-free speech but demonstrably aren’t. Their reactions when confronted with somebody saying something they don’t like tells me all I need to know.
I would generally agree though are Universities not publicly funded? I tend to think that a condition of public funding is allowing free speech. I think that’s how it works in the US. Private bodies can do whatever they want, public ones or anyone taking their money can’t. That seems fair and reasonable to me. But then I would probably be inclined to privatise universities completely. That would not necessarily “fix” this issue, but at least they would not do it on our money.
Clarence Thomas in his Gay Marriage dissent made the point that “rights” have been traditionally understood as freedoms from government interference. Your wording makes that clearer. “Rights” and “Freedoms” have been conflated. I think it’s entirely unhealthy for “rights” of the sort that are often talked about to be legally protected, because they are really vague entitlements to something or other being provided that ought to be entirely within the discretion of the political branch to decide whether or not and how much to provide e.g. the right to work, to housing, “clean air” etc.
I suppose its up to the society who they invite or accept, but it’s their loss if they choose to ban participants who are starkly opposed to their ideologies. No progress is made or new insights gained in the absence of any challenge, where the same or very similar opinions are just bounced around and there are no points of disagreement.
That might make for an interesting discussion among like-minded people, but it’s not a debate.
Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more.
They are a debating society so they should debate, including with people who they vehemently disagree with. To not do so is intellectual and, it seems, political cowardice.
By refusing to allow a Reform speaker to speak, they are proving that they can’t win an argument against that Reform speaker. Bangor have lost, without a word being exchanged.
If someone wanted to publicly debate with me that it was.okay to gas the Jews, I would find their view and their position deeply repulsive. However, I would *want* them to publicly state their case so I could step up after them and in only a few short words make it clear how reprehensible and anti-human that speaker is. If I don’t let them speak, I deny myself the opportunity to humiliate them. I would be a coward.
The Bangor Debating Society are cowards. They are also, as someone else pointed out, dim-witted.
They are also illiterate if they don’t understand the meaning of the word “debate”
“…the values of welcoming and fair debate that our society has upheld for 177 years…”
This is what they said after announcing they were banning people from a debate. Welcoming? Fair debate? Are these people capable of hearing and understanding the words that come out of their mouths?
Excellent. Bangor University’s debating society has just promoted Reform UK, saving the party time, trouble and expense. Counterproductive is a big word but these useful idiots ought to learn what it means.
How pathetic that rather than engage in debate with those people who have different views to their own they parrot clichés. Keep hate out…. why not defeat it with the power of your argument? Sadly these students have been educated to pass exams not ask difficult questions. Examiners unfortunately require regurgitation of ‘acceptable’ answers not analysis and thought except at the most superficial level.
“In line with our values, this request was refused.” I would like to see a list of their ‘values’.
I can get them using racism and hate (however misguided) and whatever tf the latter means — transphobic? – well i’m with the Workers Party on Trans – respecting all persons rights including by the definition of “all persons”, “Trans Rights” – up to the point of not diminishing the rights of other persons. Re homophobia – outside perhaps i dunno – some secret recording of a boistrous Nigel Farrage after a couple of G&Ts in the Club house …have Reform demonstrated anything that could be interpreted as homophobic??
If Reform become the next government then no doubt they will refuse all funding ‘to keep hate out’. One off the list. Savings all round.
“HATE” = THE PEOPLE YOU DISAGREE WITH. ———PEOPLE WITH A DIFFERENT WORLD VIEW TO YOU——- PEOPLE WHO DON’T THINK FILLING OUR COUNTRY UP WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MIGRANTS EVERY YEAR AND BEING EXPECTED TO HOUSE AND FEED THEM ALL IS A GOOD IDEA. ——THE PEOPLE WHO REALISE THAT EVEN IF ALL THE SCAREMONGERING ABOUT CLIMATE IS REMOTELY TRUE (WHICH IT ISN’T) THAT THE UK IS ONLY 1% OF THE ALLEGED PROBLEM. ——-THE PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT MEN IN THEIR DAUGHTERS TOILET. ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC. ——–“HATE” IS THE EXCUSE FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT STAND PEOPLE NOT FALLING FOR THEIR ABSURD VIEW OF THE WORLD.
Simple….Just withdraw ALL future funding.