The point is well made; the policy could be abused. However, almost anything can be. I would say that a motion to implement a no-platform policy needs to be carefully drafted and carefully scrutinised; it should certainly be specific to a given organisation rather than undefined and contested terms like ‘fascist’.

As I said, I understand no-platform to include an organisation not inviting the BNP (or whoever) to any events. There is a particular implication for student societies; as they are part of their respective unions, they would be bound by such a platform and prevented from inviting along (say) Nick Griffin. As you will recall from your student days, there are, sadly, people who think that controversy is per se good and so will do anything to promote it, regardless of the cost. The example there is the Oxford Uniion, which is a separate legal entity to the Oxford University Students’ Union.

Trying to disrupt a separate organisation’s event would, like as not, fall foul of a variety of laws (including trespass). I don’t think any organisation can legally resolve to break the law of the land. In the case of students’ unions, such a policy would automatically be ultra vires to the extent that it conflicted with the law.

I am not sure what the position is regarding ‘official’ election hustings.

xD.

I’ve seen that used in the wrong hands (e.g., student politics when I was at Uni) to deny free expression to those who happen to be unpopular with the currently ascendant faction.

Hopefully the real world is different - and I am not sufficiently up to date on student politics to comment on the situation in the last few years.

I can see the sense in refusing to share a platform, however.