this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
55 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

4009 readers
55 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
55
Reform UK's 'Children's Book Bans' Could Open The Floodgates for Censorship (bylinetimes.com)
submitted 3 days ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

On Monday, I gave what might have been my first ever fist pump for a House of Lords debate. Lord Watson of Invergowrie asked a question in the chamber about an investigation I published with Index on Censorship, where 53% of the school librarians I surveyed said they had been asked to remove books from their shelves. Even more worryingly, 56% of those librarians then felt forced to actually remove the books in question.

An overwhelming number of the books ripped off school library shelves had LGBTQ+ themes or authors, and the bans were usually in reaction to a single parent complaint – or even school leaders acting in anticipation of causing offence among particular communities. I spoke to librarians who feared for their jobs, and others have been in touch since, telling me about the pressure they are under.

The debate in the House of Lords showed overwhelming support for the freedom to read, and it was heartening to see the Lords sit up and listen.

Fast-forward to Wednesday evening. Just as I was thinking about which picture book to read to my son (which may or may not have had LGBTQ+ themes), a Reform councillor was making plans to raid library collections across Kent.
[…]
Whether books have indeed been banned, or a councillor is simply claiming that books have been banned, this is a dark moment for the freedom to read in the UK. Libraries in Kent have this week been a battleground for culture wars, and I fear they won’t be the last to become so.

There have been rumours of book ban demands happening in other Reform-led councils, but when I’ve asked the library services in question, they’ve denied having received such instructions. This is the first time it’s happened out in the open.

This is the kind of move we’ve already seen in the USA. Book censorship there has spiralled, with right-wing groups like Moms for Liberty and Republican politicians often leading the charge and calling for bans. Librarians have even received death threats and been investigated for holding LGBTQ+ content, as is very well-evidenced in a new film, The Librarians.

Up until this week, I could confidently say that library censorship in the UK was happening behind closed doors (not that that’s any better), and that incidents, whilst concerning, were not necessarily widespread. I can no longer say that. When a councillor publicly seeks to ban children’s books from a children’s section, something has shifted, there is a certain audacity to it. And now, I worry that the UK floodgates have opened. Others will feel emboldened to take similar actions.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Reform UK is attempting to emulate the MAGA methods in the US.

Yet another reason they should never have power in this country

[–] Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We'll let them though. Labour government right now:

https://imgflip.com/i/9zrdbh

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Explain?

[–] Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The meme explained:

In my opinion our Labour government are not doing anything about a real threat to our country (ReformUK). They are doing things against an imagined threat to our country (over policing protests). I could have picked any imagined threat really, disabled people maybe, but the protest thing is recent.

To add, instead of harassing its citizens, labour could instead tackle wealth inequality. It's hard to argue that the immigrants are taking their only cookie when reform voters have a bunch of cookies, it's easy for voters to have a bunch of cookies when you stop the ultra-wealthy hoarding them all.

Tackling real threats, Vs distracting people with imagined ones.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How would you say they aren't tackling Reform? I'd argue they are, just that it's hard to debate a populist who can promise whatever he wants knowing he won't receive even a tenth of the media scrutiny.

Labour have tried to tackle wealth inequality. A windfall tax on energy firms, VAT on private schools, inheritance tax on "farming" estates that were increasingly used as a tax avoidance scheme, banning the use of offshore trusts to avoid inheritance tax, WFA means testing, introducing taxes on non-doms, etc.

It's also true that taxing wealthy people is hard, because they have the resources and the ability to avoid taxes/move assets/leave. Wealth taxes are notoriously hard to implement, we see that worldwide. And even if we managed it, it wouldn't earn near enough.

[–] Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

How would you say they aren’t tackling Reform?

... by Reform not being tackled? I thought it was self evident? How can I say that it's raining outside? By looking at the rain outside.

I gave one example of how they could tackle Reform. But, taking inspiration from their latest actions, they could declare Reform a terrorist group and lock them up. An extreme solution to be sure, unethical too, but it isn't above Labour to do so. Pick somewhere in the massive spectrum in-between.

You don't need to defend Labour here. They'll throw you under the bus to protect the wealthy too.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

... by Reform not being tackled? I thought it was self evident? How can I say that it's raining outside? By looking at the rain outside.

Did you not read my comment?

they could declare Reform a terrorist group and lock them up

I'm sure that'd be legal and go well. Just declare political opponents terrorists and arrest them. That's some Trumpian shit right there.

You don't need to defend Labour here. They'll throw you under the bus to protect the wealthy too.

Who says I'm defending them? I'm being realistic.

"Protect the wealthy" lmao. It's like you've completely ignored the government's actions.

[–] Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I read your comment. I can also see the rain outside. Just as proof you read my link with the results on whether it's raining outside. Are Labour(24%) currently ahead or behind Reform(26%)? (Yougov - July poll). I, personally, find that concerning. You do you though.

That’s some Trumpian shit right there.

Now you're getting it. Did you read my comment? I said it was extreme and unethical. Labour have proved they will do "Trumpian shit", just not to handle Reform. Pick something in the gulf between the options. Tackle wealth inequality - huge range of options - declare them terrorists.

It’s like you’ve completely ignored the government’s actions.

Or, it's like I've gone outside to check whether it's raining.

Both my claims: (Reform haven't been handled, wealth inequality hasn't been tackled) are evidence based. To argue with me you're going to need some polling data that Reform have been relegated to irrelevance and you'll need data that wealth inequality has significantly decreased to the point potential Reform voters aren't worried about their last cookie. Without both of those you're just getting soaking wet telling me it's sunny.

How can you suggest haven't paid attention to the government's actions given I referenced their actions in every one of my comments?

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok, so clearly you didn't read my comment.

Feel free to read it then get back to me. Goodbye until then.

[–] Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I read it. You just don't seem to like that, based on the evidence, I don't agree.

How can I say Labour haven't tackled Reform? Lab 24% vs Ref 26%. You argue that they are? Cool, Lab 24% vs Ref 26%.

How can I say Labour haven't tackled wealth inequality? Government report says wealth inequality is very high. You'd argue they tried tackling wealth inequality? Cool, Government report says wealth inequality is very high.

I said the government's actions were extreme and unethical. You described Labour's behaviour Trumpian, so that's something I guess.

You say I ignore government actions? I referenced government actions. At least pretend you read my comment, have AI summarise it for you or something.

My entire argument is that Labour are, at best, ineffectual at tackling the threats to our country. Evidence backs me up. You want to argue, bring some evidence. Else you're getting soaking wet with the rest of us. You want to argue it's sunny? Cool, we're all getting rained on though. They tried and failed? How does that not support that Labour are ineffective?

Goodbye. (We're not trains, we don't need to announce our departure)

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Unfortunately there's a very real possibility this is our future, and exactly what this community wants.

[–] shath@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

one again the christian lobby has managed to make themselves just seem like all they want is liberty and self expression - they want their expression to be protected whilst everyone else can eat shit and die

[–] tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Just heard Tice on LBC being questioned about all the lying and he used being a Christian as a defence. Everyone sins, he told Tom Swarbrick.

[–] shath@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

being racist/homophobic is acceptable because jesus died to let you do so

[–] tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Do you think I could get away with some serious financial crime if I just quoted the Psalms and declared I was a repentant sinner? I'd be happy to pray for any of my potential victims if that helps.

[–] shath@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago

how do you think people who commit white collar crime continue to not feel bad about it?

[–] shath@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago

as if the gates haven't been opened already

[–] abadidonque@feddit.uk 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If libraries are going to remove books they should need a petition, printed and in the library foyer, requiring more votes for than against.

People should be happy that kids are reading any books at all though tbh and I think librarians would get a lot of respect and support if they told these people to bugger off.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Nope. Just because a majority disapprove of an idea. Is in no way a reason for that idea to be removed from view.

On the other hand. If parent wants to prevent their children from being exposed to an idea they disagree with. Then those parent need to be with the children and monitor the books they read or select from a library. Just like the internet.

They do not get to enforce their censorship on the children of parents who do not worry about such simple ideas. Even if those parents are a minority.

Hiding ideas from view. Is just confession that they lack the ability to effectively argue against it.