@Nigel Whitfield
+1 internets for you Sir. Well said.
Truly one of the best posts I have read all day.
The founder of Stagecoach is accusing Google of censoring him by dumping his personal website from their search engine results. Sir Brian Souter is a Scottish businessman who controversially funded a campaign in 2000 to keep the anti-gay legislation of Section 28 in the Local Government and Finance Act. Could it be Sir Brian's …
I don't want homosexuality promoted at school any more than I want religion or coca-cola or the BNP promoted at school. It's just not the right place to do it.
School is not supposed to be a propaganda station or marketing sink for whoever has the most money or political clout at the time.
Homosexuality may be an equal lifestyle in this culture but it's not a special one and it doesn't need special consideration.
Section 28 wasn't there to stop the promotion of homosexuality (whatever that means). It was there to stop any discussion of the subject. It was a hateful piece of legislation imposed to assuage a particular narrow-minded part of the population at the expense of a vulnerable minority.
Like any concept, homosexuality can be spun or propagandized. The legislation was introduced in reponse to a few schools advocating homosexuality to very young children in a rather over-the-top way. One book in particular caused uproar IIRC, but memory fades.
I just realized Google's huge additional power to propagandize anything by adjusting their listings. Wow. I don't think they scuppered Soulter though. After all their listings contain web sites *far* more disturbing that his.
You're probably thinking of the book "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin" which did indeed cause a big fuss in some of the papers, who seemed to suggest that this was being made available in school libraries and children would be forced to read it.
In fact - after all, the tabloids never exaggerate, do they? - there was a copy, or possibly more than one, placed in a teachers' resource library, with the intention that, if a teach felt it might be necessary, it would be available, and might help some kids understand that the home they came from, or that other people came from, wasn't the only one of its kind.
Now, some people may find that disgusting, but honestly, I still don't think it's propagandising to tell people that, no, they're not the only person who has a background like that.
I remember when I started school in the early 70s, my brother and I had a fab new word that none of the other kids in class did - "divorce." That wasn't, thankfully, the sort of thing you got teased about at school but children can be very cruel, especially when they see some of the vile hateful rubbish that used to appear routinely in the media.
For a little more on the book, and the original furore around S28, it's worth reading this piece by Ian McKellen, which also points out that, contrary to popular belief, the book wasn't placed in school libraries. And it reveals many of the sort of instances of self censorship that the vile clause caused.
http://www.mckellen.com/writings/activism/8807section28.htm
It's heartening to see so many of the commenters here agreeing that the whole notion of "promoting" homosexuality was a nonsense; a shame there are clearly still a few who manage to equate "it's something that happens, no big deal" with "you simply must try it; last one to buggery's a sissy"
@ Nigel Whitfield - yes, that is probably the book I was remembering. It's fair enough to say the tabloids exagerated, and that the book was provided to teachers and not children. But it was a children's book, not an adults', and it is hard to believe that that the council did not intend children to read the book or have teachers relay it to them, otherwise why put it in the aschool? At the time it was thought that this amounted to advocating a way of living to very young children. Hence the controvesial clause.
Much has been made of this clause ever since, and many on both sides of the argument fail to see the difference between promoting tolerance of something and promoting the thing itself. Leaders onboth sides have taken advantage of this confusion for political ends.
Hmm.. While I have no time for the man's personal politics, surely there's no way you can agree with censoring him in Google search results yet condemn him for his stance on Clause 28/2A? You can't say that it's terrible for this man (Souter) to limit what people are told, but it's OK for these other men (Google)to limit what people are told. Your'e basically saying censorship is fine as long as it's in agreement with our beliefs, but when it's not it's evil. That's hypocritical in the extreme.
Either he's wrong to call for what he did therefore Google are wrong to tweak their search results, or Google can do whatever they like with their search results and therefore he's also free to call for whatever he likes as well.
Free speech is an absolute. You either have it for everyone no matter how distasteful, or you don't.
"...surely there's no way you can agree with censoring him in Google search results yet condemn him for his stance on Clause 28/2A?"
Clause 28/2A is a government action and hence constitutes institutional censorship. Google is a private business and have the right to say or not say whatever they like (as does Sir Brian.)
You and Sir Brian assert that this is a "free speech issue." I wholeheartedly agree. The fact that he would actively campaign to constrain a private company (Google) to speak in the way he wants them to does a wonderful job of highlighting his true feelings on free speech.
Free speech is an absolute, and if Google doesn't have it, then none of us do.
That Google (shall we call it the big G ?) measures other peoples interest in a given web page to give it a rank - if people don't link to the page then it drops down the rankings.
I would find it surprising that anyone at Google would care enough to make any specific effort.
ttfn
I can't believe I had to get to the second page before someone pointed out that google are likely considerably more interested in things other than this bloke's opinions, however interesting he thinks they are.
If they messing with what's-his-name's google ranking then they must be spending 100,000's of man hours messing with everyone's. I wonder if Mr Stagecoach even knows what an algorithm is, let alone a search one.
Maybe he should read this - http://www.google.com/explanation.html
Mr Souter has free speech; his witless blathering (or rather, that of his PR) that this is against free speech is just a feeble minded attempt to wrap a big sulk up in some sort of matter of principle.
Google has not blocked his website; it has not taken it off line, and it has not censored him in any way. His website, with whatever self aggrandising piffle it contains is still in the same place, with the same content as it's probably always had, and just as accessible as ever. No one is preventing people from reading it, or locking them up if they do, or installing web filters to protect the innocent from viewing it.
The concept of "free speech" does not extend to "I demand that Google's algorithms determine that I'm the expert on a topic," even where that topic may be himself; indeed, you might argue that very often a person's own account is the least objective place to go for information about them.
It's hardly a massive leap of imagination for those who desire to hear words from the man himself to realise that BrianSouter.com may be the address to type; nor should it be particularly surprising, given his views and the amount that has been written about them, and the number of times other people may have linked to those sites, that Google's algorithms rate some of those accounts higher than his own PR puffery.
I'm sure many people are annoyed that their own sites don't rank higher on Google; that the search engine, in effect, says "you know, that's not very interesting, here are some better sources of information about X."
Most of them, however, are not quite stupid enough to equate that with censorship, and to decide that they need to sulk to a government department.
You searched for "Brian Souter" did you mean "Maggie Thatcher, the PM that brought in Section 28 and meant I daren't even ask a teacher for advice about being gay and made it illegal for me to have sex until I was 21 while everyone else could do it at 16?", "Stonewall.org.uk" or "Peter Tachell"
Or if we actually bother to learn our history, rather than spout "it was in the 80's therefore Thatcher was to blame", we should note that this amendment was originally raised by Lord Halsbury in 1986 and promoted in the Commons by Jill Knight.
It then went to a vote to be passed into law, which duly happened in the Commons in December 1987.
As for "not being able to talk to a teacher about sex", I never felt a need to do that and I was a teenager for a large proportion of the 80's. If the reasoning behind talking to a teacher was due to a lack of parent/child interaction, then the issue lies with your parents, not with the establishment (whether that be school or government) and not with anyone who did or didn't support this outdated law.
Don't you remember the fuss the decrepit old witch made in the Lords to try to stop its repeal?
Whatever you think of her economic policies, *nothing* excuses that sort of behaviour. Whoever thought the amendment up in the first place, she could have stopped them with not so much as a swing of her handbag.
And just because a completely unrepresentative sample of one - you, whom I am assuming are heterosexual - didn't want to talk to your teacher about sex doesn't mean that nobody else did either. Besides which, it was about far, far more than that as has been explained in this forum much more eloquently than I could ever do, as you can find out if you only bother to read with your mind open.
>Maggie Thatcher, the PM that [...] made it illegal for me to have sex until I was 21 while everyone else could do it at 16?
Um, no she didn't, unless she was a lawmaker in 1533:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533
or 1967:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967
She didn't fix it, but she damn well didn't create it. Don't conflate.
/orders extra-large shot of mindbleach for defending Thatcher
Come off it, considering you weren't allowed to promote or talk about homosexuality because of Section 28, she hardly made it a level playing field.
Do you really think it was fair for someone to have to wait an extra 5 years to have sex?
Maybe we should ask Alan Turing ... oh! no he buzy eating an apple at the moment
I sure a lot of people will be having a party when MT finally dies
I live in a small town in Scotland on a residential street with families and children.
My partner and I have been here for 5 years and we're just very much part of the local backdrop.
Everyone talks to us and includes us in everything going on. The children talk to us and accept us with no problem or qualms whatsoever.
There is no homophobia or even the merest hint of disapproval.
How different from my previous address in Brighton: supposedly a gay mecca. In reality it was a vile homophobic dump with gay men being beaten up or murdered on an almost daily basis.
I am Scottish, my partner is English and I've lived all over the UK.
Soutar and his sister are two of the worst examples of human greed and parochial tunnel vision one could imagine. He's entitled to his views, but he's bound to notice that NO ONE IS LISTENING, at least not here.
No, he isn't. That is what this is all about. The low Google page rank about which Souter is complaining is entirely because no-one is going to it. However, instead of accepting that he is in a minority, he decides that he is being censored. He is just another low-grade moron with a strong psychopathic streak (just like many successful business people).
Teaching about homosexuality in schools promotes it in the same way that teaching about fish promotes breathing underwater.
There must be something pretty attractive about this homosexuality business.
Schools attempt to promote 'community' leads to riots, years of say no to drugs in every lesson produces a cabinet that has more (ex-)drug users than a Grateful Dead concert, promoting healthy eating and exercise has lead to chicken nuggets and kids that can barely carry an LCD TV out of Dixons.
And yet all schools would have to do is mention that Alan Turing was guy and the entire youth of Britain would be turned in Julian Clary overnight.
I mean, you wouldn't believe the sheer amount of time it takes fitting in the gym, the hairdressers, the shopping for designer clothes, the manicures.
And that's even before you make a start on the sex; apparently, we have an average of 106 partners a year, according to some christian web sites.
I try to do my bit, as much as the next man. But I went on holiday for a couple of weeks, and then work was busy, and now I have a massive backlog to get through; I had to have sex seven times in my lunch hour, just to keep up!
I'm telling you, it's a chore. A glamorous one, but still a chore
Google is a company - Unless this idiot has a contract with Google - they are free to include / exclude anything they want from their search engine (with in the bounds of the law).
If anyone has an issue with how Google runs their business they can use another site or start their own search engine and drive Google out of business (As Microsoft is finding it's not that easy).
Yeah Brian I'm sure Google (a massive global conglomerate) are conducting a personal vendetta against you. After all you are so important that how dare your site fall down in the rankings. It must all be a conspiracy. That or their ranking algorithm changes from time to time and your site has fallen afoul of it. Try following their suggestions and wait for the caches to pick up the changes. And quite whingeing.
No one has a 'right' to No.1 and the site is in google.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&cr=countryUK|countryGB&client=firefox&hs=vlV&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&biw=1658&bih=786&tbs=ctr%3AcountryUK|countryGB&q=www.briansouter.com&oq=www.briansouter.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1408l5791l0l6461l25l22l1l0l0l0l219l3123l1.17.3l21l0
There are other search engines available.....
what an idiot, obviously needs some publicity.