I understand that you find the Daily Mail's reporting and the responses to it to be predictable and filled with complaints about wasteful spending. However, it's essential to acknowledge that neither the newspaper nor anyone here truly knows the full rationale behind the project in question. It could have multiple objectives and serve various purposes that go beyond what is apparent. It's important not to jump to conclusions based on the analysis presented by the Mail, as their perspective may be biased. Moreover, decisions about funding research projects are made through a rigorous and peer-reviewed process by independent experts in the field. Therefore, it may be more reasonable to rely on these expert opinions rather than solely relying on the newspaper's analysis.

Typical Daily Mail report and predictable responses here to it.

You all do love to have a moan about something the Mail reports as a “woke” waste of money!

Neither the Mail nor anybody here knows the true rationale which lies behind this project. It could easily be multi-faceted and intended to meet several objectives. People tend not to throw money at worthless projects so making assumptions on any analysis presented by the Mail is many times more questionable than a peer reviewed decision made by a University.

A spokesman for UKRI said:

'UKRI invests in a diverse research and innovation portfolio. Decisions to fund the research projects we support are made via a rigorous peer review process by relevant independent experts from across academia and business.'

Not fluently I'm afraid but this is from their website:

“Given that educational institutions throughout the world are actively engaged in decolonising their curricula, Stevenson’s work and legacy present a particularly valuable focus of inquiry. Stevenson became actively involved in supporting Samoan and Hawaiian indigenous sovereignty movements at a crucial period just before these islands were annexed by the US and Germany.”

However, it said that while the writer treated South Seas locals “with considerable agency and dignity” they sadly include “many of the colonial stereotypes typical of fin-de-siecle western literature.”

Just for the record I have not said it isn’t a ridiculous waste of money. What I have said is no one, other than those involved and the funder, has the information to determine that. Those, like the Mail, who write deliberately provocative articles designed to enrage their readership are not doing anyone a service. They are pursuing a political agenda.

With so many genuinely concerning things happening in the world it’s reasonable to ask why any “newspaper” would choose to run this as a story.

It's the socially liberal conservatives that have betrayed actual conservativism by overseeing all these weirdos into these positions...talking about but doing nothing over what was happening in our universities....Indeed encouraging it.

It's not an accident that the leaders of these institutions are woke...DEI isn't an accident it's government policy. .The conservatives did nothing at all about it. Let it not be forgotten that Amber Rudd both put Dick in charge at the Met and publicly celebrated the appointment.

Just like it was the conservatives who wrote manufesto after manifesto committing itself to lowering immigration only to actually enforce policies that deliberat4ely increased it.

I think the truth is hitting most Tory voters now that actually the Tories are far more concerned with both neo and social liberalism than anything else and have been falsely trading under the conservative name for decades now.

Even Reform aren't that conservative and....and as has been shown have deselected candidates if they spoke politically correct views or Hope Not Hate dislike them.....And let it not be forgotten that the far left Hate Not Hope are given hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money each year by the conservatives....when that organization directly oppose conservativism.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Mar 2024 8.06am)

I am delighted to learn that for some Reform is not far right enough.

Reform are likely to make some impact at the next GE but are perceived by most as being the furthest right of anything we have seen in my lifetime. The appeal being populist rhetoric rather than realism.

There can only be a tiny handful who think they aren’t right enough, so little chance of their extreme views taking hold.