In your second paragraph you've written "live! understands this is only part of the story taken out of context". Can I just make it clear that that whole sentence "questioned whether recruiting black students from deprived neighbourhoods was a good idea, given that problems with knife and gun crime might attract" is all fabricated by these silly student forums and now the press. This is the context they have created for the word "undesirables".

Indeed, I believe the so called 'undesirables' was in fact referring to members of the public in areas or high knife and gun crime. These 'undesirables' could pose a threat to members of the fictional university, if security on campus was inefficient! Chris Mullan was merely pointing out that in an area of high knife and gun crime funding should be allocated for the security of the students. This is far from being racist, rather, having the welfare of the members of the fictional university at heart.

stop using so many inverted commas and words like apparently when they are not necessary. it gets really boring.

also, holding a sign saying 'Bring back slavery' obviously constitutes race hatred. F**king idiots.

Damm it's late

"holding a sign saying 'Bring back slavery' obviously constitutes race hatred"

No it doesn't. It may constitute racism, but it certainly isn't racial hatred. Even if what Chris Mullan said was not misquoted or taken out of the context, that would not be racial hatred either. Despite the best attempts of the government, we haven't introduced the thought police yet and holding racist views is not illegal. Encouraging people to beat up black students would be worthy of a police investigation, neither of the alleged incidents here are.

One could argue that "Bring Back Slavery" is race hatred as it advocates forced labour, alongside the capture and imprisonment of an entire race.

I think that might be considered illegal in some wishy-washy liberal circles.

That assumes that he intended slavery solely for a single race. Who knows? Maybe he thinks all should be enslaved?

And "please": inverted commas and "apparently" are necessary because this article is reporting on second-hand information without full clarity on a matter under police investigation. Anything else could get you done under Contempt of Court.

in this article the inverted commas around the words - activist, witch-hunt, undesirables, race hate and student movement are unnecessary and the absence of said inverted commas could not 'get you done under Contempt of Court'. They are just irritating.

it's hilarious to see an engineer try to show that racism and racial hatred are mutually exclusive.

Alright, the inverted commas are there to denote that they are the words of others. That's just proper grammar. That you find it irritating is neither here nor there; it is correct.

The use of allegedly/apparently however are required to provide legal protection.

And I think we can assume that engineer is referring to "racial hatred" as a shorthand for the offence of "inciting racial hatred", a crime dependent on, but not synonymous with, racism. He did not say the two were mutually exclusive.

I love the fact that finally the new editor has written something worth reading, and yet all thats discussed in the discussion is her use of grammer!

Anon - you are correct. Should people be investigated by the police for making racist comments? If they are trying to incite others to commit crimes against someone based on their race, then yes, they should. However, if they aren't, then people are entitled to their views, no matter how socially unacceptable.

the subject of the article is interesting but no, the article is not worth reading

A lot of assumptions are made about the identity of contributers writing under a psuedonym. It is interesting that you assume that only the editor can write articles. I must however disappoint you on this occaision as this is not my version of this article. Someone else submitted an article on the same subject that I was writing and I favoured the alternative contributer over myself. I'm sure you can appreciate the irony.

Can I just point out that Bring Back Slavery is as offensive to me as Bring Back the Holocaust. I really sorry to break this little party up editor but I wish to point out to those commenting that slavery has huge baggage: the rapes, the torture and the murders (all of which this country has yet to accept). It is not a joking matter. It does offend people and yes many black officers within the NUS would find it offensive. Many people died, these people don?t require further humiliation at the hand of a bunch of public school boys.

To Engineer ? racism and racial hatred are one in the same once you have dealt with it personally. I personally believe you should only comment after you have walked down the street and had someone abuse you based on the colour of you skin.

To Anon ? your right it may advocate slavery for all but if you have any level of common sense you will understand that some people will feel that the comment is more directed towards them.

With respect I could argue with you all day, I have no intention of stoking racial tensions at imperial but I was annoyed because we are meant to be the future leaders of the world and we can?t seem to show an ounce of empathy.

I am truly disappointed.

"racism and racial hatred are one in the same once you have dealt with it personally".

No they're not. And I say that as someone who has dealt with it personally.

We have established that in terms of reference for this article and its discussion, "racial hatred" refers to the criminal act of "inciting racial hatred". The operative word there is "inciting". The possession of unpleasant views is not a crime, nor should it be. Incitement, regardless of where you stand on the issue however, is a crime under English law. The question is not whether or not he held a racist view, but whether or not his actions (and the law deals with the act, not the thought) constituted a bona-fide incitement to racial hatred.

Moreover, this is more a case of insensitivity. I very much doubt that his intention was to seriously advocate the restoration of slavery or persuade others to join some mass-movement to reinstitute slavery. Crass, insensitive, offensive yes. But was it really worth calling in the police where a few words with the person concerned might have had more effect?

And Chris Mullan isn't a public schoolboy either.

Anon your talking c**p. If you want to have it out meet me in the guilds office in 20 mins.

By the way I wasn?t talking about Chris Mullan.

Writing under pseudonyms is so boring and childish and it seems as if more than every other article on this place is written under some ridiculous little name.

"racism and racial hatred are one in the same once you have dealt with it personally"

If that was true, given we're talking about 'inciting racial hatred' in the legal sense, it would mean that the law would magically change its definition if the victim had previously received abuse because of the colour of their skin. It doesn't work like that. Before you rant about it in reply, please settle down and allow the context to sink into your brain, before engaging your hands with the keyboard.

Craig Cox, who is alleged to have held up the sign, would be - if it is true - a complete pillock, unfit to be a student officer and in dire need of some education about the horrors of slavery. That doesn't warrant a police investigation unless someone has evidence of him doing something more than being a pillock. It may well be more offensive if you have experienced racism, but offending people is not a crime. This is not to say I have no empathy with the people in the room who found it offensive, I just don't believe the police should be wasting their time investigating something which could be far more sensibly dealt with by the disciplinary procedures already in place.

Chris Mullan on the other hand appears not to have said anything that should even be considered racist. I think most people would agree that people carrying guns and knives are "undesirables" and in areas of high gun and knife crime you should look at funding to keep guns and knifes out. That's all he seems to have said, yet some over-sensitive people, including the Black Students Officer, seem to have decided:

1) he was referring to black students (yes, current gun and knife crimes do seem to be young black men killing each other, but there are many other cases)

2) he was saying that all black students were undesirables because they all carry guns and knives

3) that the extra money would be for the protection of the white people in colleges in these deprived areas, to keep the safe from the black students who were all carrying knives and guns

Where as what actually seems to have happened is:

1) it was a hypothetical area with high poverty and high crime (like those which seem to experience high gun and knife crime)

2) he was saying that some people in this area might carry guns and knives

3) he thought funding should be provided to protect those people who wanted to study from those carrying guns and knives

The first set of points is manufactured by someone with their own axe to grind, the second is probably closer to what happened.

"Anon your talking c**p. If you want to have it out meet me in the guilds office in 20 mins."

What a well-thought-out rebuttal that was. I guess I shall have to take my reasoned argument elsewhere as we all know that threats of violence are vastly superior to considered points of view.

I am sure that your comments however are as much bluster as your previous statement that you could "argue all day", as you have just demonstrated that you are unable to with that stupid remark.

i completely agree. Live! would be much more professional and credible if real names were used.

Why? So people can engage in ad-hominem attacks?

Was Orwell boring and childish?

Yeah but then they'd see that matthews was writing nearly all the articles and he could get into trouble as a medling staff member ;)

And if they could see that they would be very much mistaken...

The very fact that some berk decided to resort to threats of violence on this discussion provides all the reason one needs for anonymous and pseudonymous contribution. It is one of the surest protections against intimidation that exists.

How boring

Anon - I have to say I didn't say anything about violence. I just wanted speak to you face to face.

Also, I am hardly the invisible man.