London met uni considering banning alcohol for its muslim students.

[spooky3]

How do you know Professor Gillies politics, or the newspaper he reads?

 

I'd guess he's pretty left wing, based on reading a few articles about him, the positions held and courses studied...

 

 

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/the-vice-chancellors-office/malcolm-gilles-vice-chancellor.cfm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/trouble-at-the-top-malcolm-gillies-departure-from-city-university-has-revealed-an-intense-relationship-between-governors-and-vicechancellors-1771004.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gillies

 

There's lots more too...

[mj.scuba]

How do you know Professor Gillies politics, or the newspaper he reads?

 

Because only a left winger would propose a ban on something in the name of being "culturally sensitive".

 

It's especially funny though when the people they're being sensitive for on their behalf, never even asked for it, and in this case, are now berating him for bringing them into it.

 

--

[ferno]

If Gillies were serious about student welfare and wider social and cultural equality and fairness, why has he personally defended the following university management decisions:

 

i) direct links with the Uzbekistan regime - noted for the torture of its opponents (primarily Muslim incidentally), and forced sterilisation of woman (see this week's BBC report on the issue - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fjx63 )

 

ii) cutting of most of the university's student chaplaincy service - including the forced redundancy of the Imam;

 

iii) the drastic reduction in the opening hours of the Women's Library (down to only 1 day per week), and its eventual closure;

 

All of this is happening at a time of huge cuts to student courses/modules - including the majority of the 'critical' subjects - such as philosophy and history, and mass redundancies amongst staff - both academic and student service related.

 

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=419603&c=1

 

 

Is it perhaps the case that Malcolm Gillies may have an ulterior motive? He has pursued a policy of selling off University buildings (at what would appear to be fire sale prices), which will cause an increasing shortage of space for teaching, library and office facilities. Closing a Student Union bar may be the first step towards commandeering SU facilities.

[Chris_Sleeps]

I'd guess

You certainly would.

[Frank Sidney]

Oh, you've edited to include the muslim grooming of young children. And yet, when you look at the facts, this claim is based on nothing more than prejudice as well, asians are LESS LIKELY to commit sexual offences than white people:

 

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8248347/Are-white-girls-really-easy-meat.html

 

So, in a story that really has very little to do with muslims and certainly was not initiated by them, conrod has managed to crowbar in references to stoning children and claims that muslims are more likely to commit sex offences than whites, when the reverse is true.

 

Your tendency to blame muslims for everything's getting a bit desperate conrod!

 

Unfortunately, he's right. Lets face the fact and try to resolve it. Old figures do not include the recent discovery, well recent to some, of what's been going on in the inner cities.

 

The specific crime of gangs grooming young girls is predominantly a Pakistani crime. Wake up and smell the coffee and stop the denial...

[ferno]

Unfortunately, he's right. Lets face the fact and try to resolve it. Old figures do not include the recent discovery, well recent to some, of what's been going on in the inner cities.

 

 

You think recent convictions have tipped the proportion of asian sex offenders closer to match the demographic?

 

Have you any idea how many convictions would bee needed for that to happen? Thousands.

 

There haven't been thousands of convictions, there have been a handful.

 

 

The specific crime of gangs grooming young girls is predominantly a Pakistani crime. Wake up and smell the coffee and stop the denial...

 

Utter nonsense, as the facts show. You can desperately cling to these racist lies if you like, doesn't make them true.

 

 

Asians do not commit more sex crimes, but they do, perhaps, commit different sorts of sex crimes. White child abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in private, on the internet. The evidence suggests that Asian abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in public, on the street.

 

Ibid.

 

When you propagate these falsehoods you do a disservice to people in real danger, people at risk of being abused.

 

 

 

As at June 2009, there were 7,021 British men in prison for sex crimes, of whom only 234 were Asian. That is 3.3 per cent, rather less than the proportion of Asians in the population. And a 2008 study by Malcolm Cowburn of Sheffield Hallam University found that jailed sex criminals from ethnic minorities were less likely to have abused children than white sex offenders.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8248347/Are-white-girls-really-easy-meat.html

 

I'm afraid you are peddling racist dishonest claims.

[ferno]

Old figures do not include the recent discovery, well recent to some, of what's been going on in the inner cities.

 

 

How many convictions? It would take thousands of convictions for the number of asian sex offenders in prison to more closely match the demographic. Are you claiming there have been thousands of convictions? Can you find a source for that?

[esme]

[Mod Note

 

If you don't wish to discuss the topic in this thread, start a new one

 

This is the second warning in this thread, any more and accounts may be suspended

[mj.scuba]

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=419603&c=1

 

 

Is it perhaps the case that Malcolm Gillies may have an ulterior motive? He has pursued a policy of selling off University buildings (at what would appear to be fire sale prices), which will cause an increasing shortage of space for teaching, library and office facilities. Closing a Student Union bar may be the first step towards commandeering SU facilities.

 

Irrelevant. He publicly floated the idea on the basis of being "culturally sensitive".

[Badlittlepup]

I can just say that. Frank's rather silly claim was that some people would be excluded. They quite plainly wouldn't.

 

As you suggest, some hardcore boozers might be disinclined to attend an event where there was no alcohol being served. In no sense would they be prevented from attending though.

 

I don't think it is correct that nobody would be excluded. Perhaps not directly but if it didn't matter why do university guides contain sections on social life at universities? It does affect how people pick their courses. I would hazard a guess that your average white British 18 year old if looking at a course on the Whitechapel campus on seeing that alcohol was banned on that part of the campus would be a lot less likely to apply for that course. It's cutting out a big part of the student experience which is important to a lot of people.

 

My concern is that by following this course the university is marketing itself to a specific group of people to the exclusion of others, both in application and in the fact it will be driving people who want to socialise with alcohol off campus altogether when they socialise in that way.

 

This is an area of London where segregation is a BIG problem. In my own experience this includes prayer shops publicly playing recorded extremist sermons including Louis Farrakhan describing white people as a 'cancer' which must be stamped out underfoot, teenage asian boys abusing white people and demanding what you are doing in an 'asian' area when you are walking the streets. The press has reported on extremism in the area including an extremist group campaigning for it to be sharia enclave, an attack on a white male RE teacher because extremists disapproved of him teaching girls and threats made to women who do not cover their heads.

 

Bearing this in mind I don't think it is responsible for the university's response to be 'If you don't like something we will remove it entirely, want you want it is paramount and if you object to something we will get rid of it, your wants and applications from your community are more important to us than what other sections of the student body may want.' There are plenty of ways of dealing with this problem that don't involve entirely shutting down the bar and banning alcohol on that type of the campus such as a 'dry' bar with all the facilities and events usually found in a bar with alcohol for the use of those who don't want to visit an area where alcohol is served.

 

Bearing in mind the problems this area has I think the correct response from the university should be - 'We have two groups here, how can we accomodate the needs of both on the same campus', rather than 'We are going to change the campus in order that it meets the needs of one minority group regardless of the needs of other students on campus'. It's just another inflammatory wedge to drive between people.