Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:

The only electrical stuff we touched after that was learning how to rewire a plug, in Physics.

Strangely enough I was also taught that in physics.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Just saw this. Is this getting any play over on your side of the pond?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/american-claims-to-be-rightful-heir-to-the-throne-plans-to-overthrow-prince-charles/ar-AAnHUZw?ocid=ASUDHP

Only in the joking section of the newspaper

 Whirlwind wrote:


Such qualifications already exist. They are called NVQs this is just rebranding rather than anything else. To quote the governments own website:-

NVQs are a 'competence-based' qualification, which means you learn practical, work-related tasks designed to help you develop the skills and knowledge to do a job effectively. Taking an NVQ could be suitable if you already have skills and want to improve them, or if you are starting from scratch.

NVQs are available to adults and young people. There are five levels ranging from Level 1, which focuses on basic work activities, to Level 5 for senior management. You can take NVQs if you:
•are employed
•are studying at FE college and have a part-time job
•are completing an apprenticeship
•are at school

Rather than reinvent something that already exists maybe they would be better just to invest and advertise the current system better?

It's a general fallacy that by providing these facilities we won't need migrants to do some of this work. We already have a system to train people in these skills (otherwise we wouldn't have any). The real question is why so many people are choosing not to do them...Just inventing another type of course will not solve this issue.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


Levels 1 to 2 are probably the most pushed and dare I say abused? In the late Nineties providers were rife getting paid to push through training schemes based upon these qualifications.

Supposed to improve employ ability for those out of work. They were a boon for statisticians as the unemployed could be placed on such schemes and be classes as working or in education.

All levels are assessed based on evidence which in a centre is drummed into even the most stubborn of learner. The only possible way not gain a level 1 is if you are kicked off the course or die.

Levels 3 and 4 are of most benefit to employers and employees but could take longer to achieve and are more expensive. A business investing in such level qualification is somewhere you may want to get work as a 'yoof'.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:


Levels 1 to 2 are probably the most pushed and dare I say abused? In the late Nineties providers were rife getting paid to push through training schemes based upon these qualifications.

Supposed to improve employ ability for those out of work. They were a boon for statisticians as the unemployed could be placed on such schemes and be classes as working or in education.

All levels are assessed based on evidence which in a centre is drummed into even the most stubborn of learner. The only possible way not gain a level 1 is if you are kicked off the course or die.

Levels 3 and 4 are of most benefit to employers and employees but could take longer to achieve and are more expensive. A business investing in such level qualification is somewhere you may want to get work as a 'yoof'.

That's not really a surprise though. The 90s were the period when computers started to become mainstream. There were a lot of workers that needed retraining to use computers from basic email, word processing, spreadsheets and so on. Yes there were lots put through them ,but that was because people needed to be. It didn't have to be level three or higher in this case.

But it doesn't really answer the point of why have t levels when nvqs are there to do the same thing, you are just duplicating courses and causing confusion for employers (which do you consider higher) . The moment nvq level 1 is the basics, 2 is roughly GCSE, 3 is a level, 4 is diploma, 5 is degree but focuses on hands on work evidence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As has been pointed out, will May buckle if Tory backbenchers and right-wing rags cry foul over the Brexit negotiations?

British citizens should be allowed to keep the benefits of EU membership, according to the chief Brexit negotiator at the European Parliament.
Guy Verhofstadt said allowing individuals to keep rights, such as freedom to travel and vote in European elections should be a priority.
He also warned the European Parliament had veto powers over any deal struck.
Meanwhile EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker has said he hopes the British will one day be persuaded to re-join the EU.
Prime Minister Theresa May wants to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty by the end of March, which would pave the way for Brexit negotiations, in which the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and Brits living on the continent will be a key issue.

Mr Verhofstadt, who leads the liberal group of MEPs in the European Parliament, told the BBC that the matter had to be prioritised and "cannot be part of the political games" that have taken place over the last few months.
Tragedy, disaster, catastrophe
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he had received more than 1,000 letters from UK citizens who did not want to lose their relationship with "European civilisation".
Mostly these were driven by emotion and a feeling that they did not want to lose their European identity post-Brexit, he said, adding that he did not understand why the negative fall-out from the decision had not been discussed during the referendum, which had instead focused on the economics of Britain leaving the EU.
Many of the letters began with the appeal that "'I'm a UK citizen - I don't want to lose my relationship with Europe and European civilisation,'" he said.

"So emotion is now coming up and all those voters will want to remain in the European Union and have the feeling that they are lost, that nobody is defending them anymore, that they are losing a part of that identity - and it's for that reason that I'm trying to convince the European Union, not only the European Parliament, to take on board that feeling of UK citizens.
"I think we need to examine what type of special arrangement we can make for those individual citizens who want to continue their relationship with the EU, and the opposite - it's for both sides."
Peace process
Mr Verhofstadt said the situation "is a crisis for the EU". "The fact that a large country like Britain is leaving the EU...? It's shown a crisis in the European Union - it's a disaster. That Britain goes out of the EU is a tragedy, a disaster, a catastrophe - you name it."
He said the responsibility now is to look for "a new partnership" between the EU and the UK, but he stressed: "Unfortunately, because of the decision taken by the UK government, it can't be the single market - because they don't accept the full freedom.
"It cannot be the customs union, because they want to make their own trade deals. It cannot be the European Court of Justice - it cannot be the European economic area."
Pressed on whether a good deal could still be reached that can work for both sides, he said: "That's exactly what we're going to try to do."
But European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told reporters he hoped that the British could one day be persuaded to re-join the EU.
"I don't like Brexit because I would like to be in the same boat as the British," he said. "The day will come when the British will re-enter the boat, I hope.
"But Brexit is not the end of Europe. By contrary, Brexit is encouraging the others to continue, unfortunately without the British.... Brexit, it's not the end - I regret it but we will continue."
'Voted down'
During the BBC interview, Mr Verhofstadt insisted that there could be "no hard border" between the Republic of Ireland, that will remain in the EU, and Northern Ireland, which is leaving.
"What can't happen is that we destroy all the efforts that have been undertaken over the last 20 to 30 years to have peace there, so no hard border," he said.
He also warned the European Parliament will have the power of veto any deal brokered between the UK and the European Commission on Brexit.
"We vote no - that is possible," he told Today. "It has happened in a number of other cases that a big international multilateral agreement was voted down by the European Parliament after it was concluded.
"The fact that in the treaty it is stated we have to say yes or no doesn't mean that automatically we vote yes."
Prime Minister Theresa May has indicated that the UK Parliament will vote on the terms of exit before the European Parliament but that the UK will leave the EU anyway, irrespective of whether MPs approve or reject them.
Asked whether the UK would welcome the opportunity for British nationals to retain some of the benefits of EU citizenship after Brexit, No 10 said it was "not something that we have ever proposed or said that we are looking at".
"We will go into negotiations and discuss the ideas put forward by the EU and its various institutions," said a Downing Street spokesman.

"I think we need to examine what type of special arrangement we can make for those individual citizens who want to continue their relationship with the EU, and the opposite - it's for both sides."

Katie Hopkins’ legal bills are to top £300,000 after she lost a High Court battle to poverty campaigner and food blogger Jack Monroe, The Independent understands.

The judgement ordered Hopkins pay Monroe compensation of £24,000 for defamatory comments made on Twitter in May 2015.

But Monroe’s lawyers confirmed to The Independent that Hopkins will also pick up the bill for legal costs in excess of £300,000.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Just saw this. Is this getting any play over on your side of the pond?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/american-claims-to-be-rightful-heir-to-the-throne-plans-to-overthrow-prince-charles/ar-AAnHUZw?ocid=ASUDHP

Only in the joking section of the newspaper

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39241470

These attacks on someone for making a reasonable statement are going overboard. This judge has said nothing like the Canadian judge in the other thread.

Nothing takes away from the guilt of the attacker, they chose to attack someone. But however much you say 'The only person who is responsible for rape, is the rapist' and call people 'victim blazers' it doesn't mean that people can't recommend taking actions to keep safe. But I feel that voices of authority can't even voice this in reasonable terms without being shouted down as 'victim blamers'.

Ideally people should be free to do as they wish, and the law supports it, but practically speaking there are bad predatory people who rob, attack and rape the vulnerable, and taking the pragmatic view of preventing yourself being in a compromising situation is a good idea. I've known several people walking home from the pub drunk that have been set upon and seriously injured and robbed. Getting very drunk can put you in danger without people you can trust near by. Apportioning the blame fully on the attacker after the fact is right, but it doesn't make up for the physical and mental damage of the attack.

 reds8n wrote:
...and then emigrate west once it's all over

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I was talking about that earlier. There is never any excuse for rape, just as there is never any excuse for burglary. However, getting so drunk you become completely catatonic and vulnerable to predatory bastards is just as foolish as leaving your doors and windows unlocked. I don't think it's wrong to warn people about this. I know it sounds like victim blaming but I can't see a way around it.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I'm sure nobody posting here has ever gotten drunk in a bar or nightclub before, making themselves vulnerable. I'm glad to be posting in a thread that only contains sensible people.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't see how making such a plea in a courtroom is a very clever thing to do though. It's one thing to make such an argument in a discussion, but another entirely to make it from a position of power when dealing with someone who was just raped. It's inevitably going to come across as blaming the victim no matter the intentions. Context matters.

But former Labour MP Ms Baird told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "When somebody is raped they feel guilt and shame and they find it very hard to report it.
"If a judge has just said to them 'Well, if you drank you are more likely to get raped, we are not likely to believe you and you have been disinhibited so you've rather brought it on yourself' then that guilt is just going to get worse."

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I'm sure nobody posting here has ever gotten drunk in a bar or nightclub before, making themselves vulnerable. I'm glad to be posting in a thread that only contains sensible people.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
It's no straw man. Loads of guys are quick to victim-blame women who drink alcohol. I've never heard any guy say, "well, you should have expected to get smacked in the head with a beer bottle by a football hooligan, what do you think happens if you go to pubs and drink lager?!?"

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
But blokes offering it to women who've been sexually assaulted is particularly offensive, and particularly ridiculous.