One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.

Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:

Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.

Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".

The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause

I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

So, one more set of thoughts on Labour and patriotism. Last one for now, I promise. I think there are some interesting underlying similarities between Labour's patriotism headache and the Conservatives' traditional NHS headache

In both cases you have an issue where (1) A consensus "this is a good thing" view is held by lopsided majority of the country (2) A substantial & vocal group of activists within the party dissents from this view (3) (partly because of this) the party is less trusted on the issue

For example, with the Tories on the NHS. Since the foundation of the NHS, voters have suspected that the Tories cannot "be trusted" with it. That they secretly dislike it. That, given the chance, they would privatise it. Etc, etc. Lab campaigns always play on this.

That suspicion exists, in part, because there *is* a significant and vocal minority of Con activists who *do* talk loudly, and frequently, about how the NHS doesn't actually perform that well, is inefficient, that British voters' attachment to it is irrational, etc.

The existence of this vocal minority is not an accident. It is of a piece with other Con ideological beliefs - preference for the free market, belief heavily unionised public sector institutions are inefficient, dislike of planning etc