Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Sure. In the case of the restaurant, you have to meet the dress code. If not, you don't get in. That doesn't prevent anyone from being able to dress appropriately.
So you are accepting that money generates that privilege then? Without money you can't afford the appropriate clothes to get into the restaurant and so are left with no choice but to use the Burger King. It's the the point I was trying to make, selective entry benefits the well off not the poorest.
You also haven't addressed the point, which was that the existence of a fine dining restuarant with a dress code (aka grammar school) does not preclude the existence of a restaurant just as good as that one next door without a dress code (aka comprehensive). Why should the state force one to close and promote the other? Neither one is doing any more sociological harm than the opposite model. The reason is purely ideological. Let parents decide.
You mean let money decide. I find it a bit naive that you think we'll have equally good grammar and comprehensive system next door to each other. You don't have that now. The better teachers will drift to the grammars probably both for money and ease of teaching previously better educated children. The comprehensives will be left with the rest.
And as mentioned umpteen dozen times, this is an acknowledged flaw with a pure grammar system, but one that can be mitigated by adopting certain entry percentages. In the same way a pure comprehensive system can ward of the worst evils of the system by adopting streaming. This point has been addressed already.
I'm not sure it has really. The assumption is that you keep a certain number of places back for low income 'disadvantaged' children, but I'm not sure this works. I think we can both agree that better primary education will give a better chance of getting into a Grammar school. Because of the current system there is a natural driver on house prices of homes near good schools. That means that those with higher incomes become more advantaged. Now say you put a limit on some places for low earners (lets say a family income of £20k or less for example purposes). So what does this do. There will still be a driver even at this level on house prices. This favours those in the £15K - £20K category because they can buy a house near to that not so good primary but good enough to get a good chance of their child into a grammar at the necessary 'low income' education level. For the unrestricted cases you have the same. However take the example of a single mother or family with an income of £23K. For her child she can't compete with the much higher combined earners (which now is compounded as her child is competing for a much more restricted number of places) and she earns too much to fall into the 'disadvantaged' group. As such her child is highly unlikely to get a place in a grammar school. All you have done by placing such limits is impacted another set of children possibilities of getting a grammar school place. You've not solved the problem at all, just moved it to another 'income location'.
It's a bad idea and should be resisted it favours keeping a better elite educated class and a lower educated mass of people. Though cynically that is what I'd expect a Tory government would want.
So what you're telling me is that 34% of the schools should be grammar schools? Because clearly the opinion of many, many people is being ignored on the matter. Although if it's a simple case of majority percentage takes all, then I'd be interested to hear why Brexit should be different.
Well strictly speaking I was showing that there is decreasing support for grammars. However your comment gave me have a wry smile that you argue that leaving the EU is black and white because of a tiny margin we should definitely leave and damn those who don't but then you are happy to argue that in the case of grammar schools the minority view should be given a proportional approach to keep them happy. That sounds very much like having your cake and eating it, but then I shouldn't be surprised as that seems to be Leavers strategy. I assume you would hence be supportive of a referendum on grammar schools as that is the direct democracy that is so heralded coming out of Brexit?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/11 10:01:00
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Orlanth wrote: That youth vote you are counting on Whirlwind were too busy in the pub watching reality TV and playing games, or flipping burgers to actually vote. The already had the numbers, but they 'werent bovvered innit'. The over fifties were motivated and voted to Leave.
If you look at all the demographic info concerning the voting patterns, Leavers only "tend" to be older, less well educated, less prosperous, and living in areas with recent high immigration. But it isn't a hard and fast rule.
So when I look at the Uber court case, I think that one day, these cars won't need paid holidays or trade unions, won't get sick, won't get pregnant and need maternity leave, and then I remember Homes and Watson, in a carriage, speeding through the London fog to foil the dastardly Moriarty...
A well researched and well presented summary of just how screwed you all are.
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
Regardless, the evidence accumulated indicates that placing children together in a fully comprehensive format retards the development/learning of the brightest in any given subject, because the class can only move at the speed of the slowest.
How does that assertion sit with the demonstrable success of the Finnish school system, which I once saw summarised by a grammar advocate as "hippy-dippy commie nonsense"? Further, how does it work when considered alongside the school trials of the Khan Academy software that used a standard comprehensive-style class but allows the kids to work at their own pace, with the result that often those who began the term struggling would later jump ahead, and that the overall level of attainment was higher?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/11 23:49:09
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Regardless, the evidence accumulated indicates that placing children together in a fully comprehensive format retards the development/learning of the brightest in any given subject, because the class can only move at the speed of the slowest.
How does that assertion sit with the demonstrable success of the Finnish school system, which I once saw summarised by a grammar advocate as "hippy-dippy commie nonsense"?
And most of primary schooling isn't really about the actual information, but about teaching kids how to learn, work, and coexist together.
Besides, what sort of schools do you guys have that slow down teaching for those who might be having issuse to the point where the other students are negatively effected? At least here in the US a kid having that much trouble would get special separate attention (although it depends how good the school district/teacher is).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Regardless, the evidence accumulated indicates that placing children together in a fully comprehensive format retards the development/learning of the brightest in any given subject, because the class can only move at the speed of the slowest.
How does that assertion sit with the demonstrable success of the Finnish school system, which I once saw summarised by a grammar advocate as "hippy-dippy commie nonsense"?
And most of primary schooling isn't really about the actual information, but about teaching kids how to learn, work, and coexist together.
Besides, what sort of schools do you guys have that slow down teaching for those who might be having issuse to the point where the other students are negatively effected? At least here in the US a kid having that much trouble would get special separate attention (although it depends how good the school district/teacher is).
It's not so much slowing down teaching, as re-allocating already limited resources away from enabling higher performance. I can't speak for England but in Scotland we're already seeing the average shift strongly towards 25~ pupils/teacher in primary schools, and in my work at least i've encountered some classes considerably larger.
As for special attention for borderline cases, the mechanisms of identification are severely overtaxed that by the time its been diagnosed the damage is likely to have been done to both the subject in question and the rest of the students as well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/12 00:48:29
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
Compel wrote: I'm pretty sure in primary school in the 90's, my class was 36, with 1 teacher and no teaching assistants or the like... In Scotland.
It's entirely possible we went to the same school :|
Me as well.
Maybe 36 was the standard class size?
My school came 6th(?) in the Scottish school league tables (at least according to the Times (?)) when I was there so large class sizes obviously aren't crippling.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/12 07:14:07
One of the problems with the English system IMO is that we expect too much too young. The less well developed children fall behind early on and it is difficult for them to catch up.
For instance, the national curriculum expects children to have a certain level of reading and writing ability at 7 years old. Some other European countries don't start teaching literacy until older.
Once you reach 11 without being able to read and write, you can't realistically continue with any secondary education.
The problem is worse because the school year includes children of nearly a whole year's age difference, which is a massive range at five years old, and not insignificant at 10.
Politics, as always, has overtaken the lawyers, and thank God for that.
That's a horrifying notion. There's no way politics should ever take priority over law.
Let me clarify. I have the utmost respect for the rule of law. Prince or pauper, all should be treated equally - that's my view.
By politics, what I meant was that instead of lawyers and activists trying to derail Brexit in the courts, MPs have clearly indicated that they will respect the referendum result and vote to pass a bill backing Brexit, thus making all these courtroom battles redundant.
That's what I meant.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I get the impression that regardless of the "type" of school that is being advocated by the various commentators, the common view of what a workable education system actually needs is more funding.
I also get the distinct impression that if those within the education system are respected in society, as opposed to glorified child-minder, then attainment is greatly increased.
Kilkrazy wrote: One of the problems with the English system IMO is that we expect too much too young. The less well developed children fall behind early on and it is difficult for them to catch up.
For instance, the national curriculum expects children to have a certain level of reading and writing ability at 7 years old. Some other European countries don't start teaching literacy until older.
Once you reach 11 without being able to read and write, you can't realistically continue with any secondary education.
The problem is worse because the school year includes children of nearly a whole year's age difference, which is a massive range at five years old, and not insignificant at 10.
I think respect for the teacher and parental support, are very important things that are often overlooked, and have slowly eroded over the years.
I disagree with him, but my elderly father never tires of mentioning his solution to Britain's education woes: bring back the belt or the cane.
He maintains that it never did his generation any harm and thinks that discipline of that kind is what is needed and that do-gooders ruined education in this country.
I doubt if you'd be surprised to learn that he is also supportive of bringing back hanging.
So when I look at the Uber court case, I think that one day, these cars won't need paid holidays or trade unions, won't get sick, won't get pregnant and need maternity leave, and then I remember Homes and Watson, in a carriage, speeding through the London fog to foil the dastardly Moriarty...
A well researched and well presented summary of just how screwed you all are.
My advice to any young person starting out would be to get a job as an undertaker, pub barman, doctor, nurse, or a gig in the entertainment world - there will always be a need for humans in those things and they're things that humans will always need.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/12 11:49:22
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The Home Office is considering cutting international student numbers at UK universities by nearly half, Education Guardian can reveal. The threat is being greeted with dismay by university heads, who say some good overseas applicants are already being refused visas on spurious grounds.
The home secretary, Amber Rudd, pledged a crackdown on international student numbers at the Conservative party conference in October, to include tougher visa rules for “lower quality” universities and courses. But senior university sources are warning that the cutbacks could be far more severe than expected. They say they have seen Home Office plans that model slashing overseas student numbers, with one option to cut the current 300,000 to 170,000 a year.
The Home Office says a rumour it had modelled even more severe cuts of two-thirds, to 100,000 students a year, are “categorically untrue”. The rumour was discussed at private seminars last month by leading figures at the government’s Higher Education Funding Council for England.
International students bring more than £10.7bn to the UK economy, according to Universities UK, the vice-chancellors’ umbrella group. The head of one leading university, who asked not to be named, denounced the potential scale of the cuts as “insane”, adding: “politics is trumping economics”.
Prof Colin Riordan, vice-chancellor of Cardiff University, agrees: “The Home Office seems to have decided that cutting international students is the only way of delivering the manifesto target of getting net migration down to the tens of thousands. But it doesn’t address people’s concerns about immigration. The problems people are seeing on the ground are certainly not caused by international university students or staff.”
Vice-chancellors say some bona fide students are already being turned away after difficult “credibility” interviews, which can be part of the visa process. University heads are frightened of speaking out about these decisions in case it counts against future applicants to their institution, but have shared examples with Education Guardian:
• An applicant was deemed not to be genuine because he did not know the university library opening times.
• Another was excluded for not knowing the name of the vice-chancellor at his university – a test many would-be domestic students would certainly fail.
• One applicant was refused a visa for “falling below the amount specified in a bank account by a couple of pounds on one day out of the 90-day period, even though his parents had huge funds and their accounts were also submitted”.
Another vice-chancellor says the judgments being made by UK Visas and Immigration have changed significantly in the past few months. Indian students, in particular, seem to be having a tougher time. “They are telling some students there is exactly the same quality of course available in India so why are you coming here,” one vice-chancellor says. “That is outrageous.”
Even if students proved they had sufficient funds, some interviewers were questioning whether the chosen subject was an “appropriate” use of students’ money. “Some applicants are being asked questions we would never ask a domestic student … about what they will be doing at 25 and 30 and what they will be earning at 40,” the vice-chancellor says. “This is all clearly designed to make the applicant reconsider.”
Sir Keith Burnett, of Sheffield University, one of the vice-chancellors who accompanied Theresa May on a recent trade delegation to India, says: “If we genuinely want to be open to the world and a global leader in free trade, we can only do so by welcoming talent. This cannot simply be our own assessment; international students need to feel welcome and that accessing the UK to study and for a period of work experience is easy. Even a hint that students are unwelcome and they will go elsewhere.”
He says other countries, including Australia and Canada, are already benefiting from the government’s “deeply damaging” current position, by welcoming excellent international students who will go on to secure leading jobs and be lasting allies of their countries.
Advertisement
“Our great British universities are great precisely because they are international – and we urgently need the government to recognise this, to honour the enormous benefit international students bring to the UK,” he says.
Abhinav Paul Kongari, from Jharkhand, India, is studying mechanical engineering at Sheffield University and says it is the best decision he has ever made. “I wanted really good work experience while I was studying,” he says. “And the system of education in the UK, and especially engineering, is much better than in many other countries. I was really excited that I could engage in research early on, too.”
He adds: “I’m hoping to use the knowledge I’ve learned helping make people’s lives easier in undeveloped countries like India or South America. But I want to retain my links with Britain.”
In her party conference speech Rudd said the government wanted to help “the best universities – and those that stick to the rules – to attract the best talent, while looking at tougher rules for students on lower quality courses”.
There is anxiety in universities that the Home Office may rely on the Teaching Excellence Framework – the government’s new league table – to decide which “lower quality” institutions and courses to cut. Vice-chancellors warn this could have shocking consequences as some world-class research universities, including the London School of Economics, Bristol and King’s College London, are not predicted to score well in the new “gold, silver and bronze” rankings.
Rudd’s reference to universities that “stick to the rules” is widely thought to be a signal that the government will also crack down on institutions and courses with higher visa refusal rates. Under current guidelines universities will lose their licence to recruit international students if more than 10% of the students they recruit are refused visas. Two senior university sources said the Home Office was considering reducing this to 7%, and had looked at dropping it to 4% or 5%. A number of institutions could fail if the bar were this high.
The Home Office said: “Claims the Home Office is modelling cuts to reduce international students to a third [ie 100,000 a year] are categorically untrue. We want to strengthen the system to support the best universities – and those that stick to the rules – to attract the best talent. The British people have sent a clear message that they want more control of immigration and we are committed to getting net migration down to sustainable levels in the tens of thousands.” It did not deny that a figure of 170,000 student visas was on the table.
Riordan says shifting the visa rules is unnecessary. “There is already a system that is stopping any abuse. If they are refused a visa, they aren’t coming here, so where is the problem?”
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Compel wrote: I'm pretty sure in primary school in the 90's, my class was 36, with 1 teacher and no teaching assistants or the like... In Scotland.
It's entirely possible we went to the same school :|
Me as well.
Maybe 36 was the standard class size?
My school came 6th(?) in the Scottish school league tables (at least according to the Times (?)) when I was there so large class sizes obviously aren't crippling.
Here in the US, in a pretty Rural school district, we averaged around 20, although they got increasingly smaller as you went up in grades (in my graduating high-school class, we has <200 students total, and classes were often closer to 15 or so, other than phys-ed). Even NYC public schools are around 27.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
MPs are to debate calls for shops to be banned from opening on Boxing Day, after an online petition attracted more than 100,000 signatures.
There are currently no controls on trading hours on that day unless it happens to fall on a Sunday, and campaigners say workers need more rest.
But the government has said it will not tell retailers "how to run their shops or how best to serve their customers".
Boxing Day is among the busiest days of the year, with many sales starting.
However, the e-petition gained 138,235 signatures - more than the 100,000 required for Parliament to consider holding a debate. The debate will last from 16:30 GMT to 19:30 GMT.
'No plan for ban'
It states: "Christmas is a family time. The one day is not enough time to see two sides of families. Retail workers work extremely hard during the Christmas run up and only get the one day.
"If only everywhere could be closed Boxing Day! Some things are needed over the festive period; retail isn't one of them."
In its response to the petition, the government said: "We do not believe it is for central government to tell businesses how to run their shops or how best to serve their customers. Therefore we are not proposing to ban shops from opening on Boxing Day."
The Christmas Day Trading Act prohibits shops larger than 280 sq m from opening on 25 December, but Boxing Day is important for the retail industry.
Last year, experts predicted that 22 million people, many attracted by sales, would spend more than £3bn.
And, in 2014, 365,000 people in the UK retail industry worked on Boxing Day.
Labour MP Helen Jones will lead the debate in Westminster Hall. It will not involve a vote so cannot enforce a change in the law, but is a chance for MPs to demonstrate whether it is an issue with much support in Parliament.
Assuming the usual caveats are applied I'd be fine with this.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I always love these "help the workers" plea's. The workers usually worrying that they will loose a days work at time and a half if it happens.
It's a bank holiday as it is.
Smacks of "keep Boxing Day Sacred" religious shenanigans to me. Let those busy-bodies stay at home if they like, I wanna go to the shops/multiplex with me Chrimbo dosh and buy the things I want at low, low knock down Boxing Day Sale prices!
Also takeaways need to be open because feth turkey!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/12 14:04:16
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
notprop wrote: I always love these "help the workers" plea's. The workers usually worrying that they will loose a days work at time and a half if it happens.
It's a bank holiday as it is.
Smacks of "keep Boxing Day Sacred" religious shenanigans to me. Let those busy-bodies stay at home if they like, I wanna go to the shops/multiplex with me Chrimbo dosh and buy the things I want at low, low knock down Boxing Day Sale prices!
Also takeaways need to be open because feth turkey!!
I have generally always had work where bank holidays were full or half working days. I never really minded that much as the pay was good for what was essentially a dead day for me anyway. And I always took up extra hours if there was a chance of having the time lieu too. Friday to Tuesday weekends FTW!
This will be more of a chance to play to the parliamentarians bread and butter voter whilst actually doing feth all. British politics 101.
I get the impression that regardless of the "type" of school that is being advocated by the various commentators, the common view of what a workable education system actually needs is more funding.
I also get the distinct impression that if those within the education system are respected in society, as opposed to glorified child-minder, then attainment is greatly increased.
The intended goal itself is becoming obsolete - there are some competent people in authority who are catching on to it, but the risks involved naturally restrict the options available for a shakeup.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: I always love these "help the workers" plea's. The workers usually worrying that they will loose a days work at time and a half if it happens.
It's a bank holiday as it is.
Smacks of "keep Boxing Day Sacred" religious shenanigans to me. Let those busy-bodies stay at home if they like, I wanna go to the shops/multiplex with me Chrimbo dosh and buy the things I want at low, low knock down Boxing Day Sale prices!
Also takeaways need to be open because feth turkey!!
Honestly i'm mildly behind this.
Going from the drunk driving incidents alone, a blanket ban would probably be good from a public health perspective. It's known and recognised that the 'tiny' one hour life style shift of DST causes a massive spike in accidents, so a whole day of rich food and contention can't possibly be much better.
Unfortunately it'd have the knock on effect that yon Christmas cash influx would be spent outside the local community - i.e. online shopping - hence only 'mildly'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/12 16:55:50
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
notprop wrote: I think we're all adults and can make that call ourselves, no govt. influence required.
That's the problem - *you* won't be making the call, your boss will. And that in turn will be because his boss will, and so on up the chain, because whoever *doesn't* open on boxing day is going to lose market share to the guy who does in the world of retail. I'd suggest this is the exact (and quite possibly only sort of ) situation a government should be regulating - mexican standoffs where participation has harmful effects to others in spite of being beneficial to the individual, but non participation is equally harmful if it's not enforced on everyone i.e. pollution regulations, RF regulations, workplace safety regulations and so on.
Now for this specific situation the degree of harm is probably minuscule, but what it does mean is that I'll choose not to drive anywhere on the 26th for my own safety, to the detriment of my Local GW which has all kinds of events on.
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
@malamis Then Sunday trading and bank holiday opening times need to be legislated on. Again.
It isn't as if these days aren't known in advance. The business that is open Boxing Day has asked in advance who is available to work. We are not all held to ransom to work off our Turkey and mincepies.
notprop wrote: I think we're all adults and can make that call ourselves, no govt. influence required.
That's the problem - *you* won't be making the call, your boss will. And that in turn will be because his boss will, and so on up the chain, because whoever *doesn't* open on boxing day is going to lose market share to the guy who does in the world of retail. I'd suggest this is the exact (and quite possibly only sort of ) situation a government should be regulating - mexican standoffs where participation has harmful effects to others in spite of being beneficial to the individual, but non participation is equally harmful if it's not enforced on everyone i.e. pollution regulations, RF regulations, workplace safety regulations and so on.
Now for this specific situation the degree of harm is probably minuscule, but what it does mean is that I'll choose not to drive anywhere on the 26th for my own safety, to the detriment of my Local GW which has all kinds of events on.
The problem with this is that unless they introduce an extra day for the minimum holiday entitlement then all that will happen is that businesses will take it out of the existing staff holiday. It might be good for some, but we also have to remember that there are a lot of people out there that:-
a) Don't observe Christian holidays so having a day off in the middle of winter is not helpful (especially as they have to use holiday entitlement for any other non-Christian festival they may celebrate e.g. Diwali)
b) That some people would prefer the cash at Christmas rather than staying at home watching whatever c**p TV decides to put on.
c) That some people would prefer to use the holiday entitlement at another time of the year (e.g. the summer when you don't just have to stare at the rain or clouds).
However I do also oppose businesses forcing people to work on what effectively is a bank holiday.
I therefore think that the better option would be that employers cannot be forced to make people work on Boxing Day. This means you can have the day off if you want but if the company wishes to stay open then they need to offer their staff a suitable re-imbursement.
On an aside it appears Sunderland is changing it's views on Brexit...
Although I would caution that it is only one poll and the statistical errors have not been provided. The thing that stick out is that a similar poll before the vote went the other way and it's questionable whether readership would have changed significantly. On the other hand it's possible that pro-EU voters have now become more energised on the issue and pro-Brexit supporters are sitting back more. In terms of healing divisions that's not a good sign either. However we can't preclude the possibility that opinion is shifting away from Brexit - given that this is Sunderland heartland this probably won't do Labour any good either!
Finally I see Trousergate has now escalated to handbagate as well. What I think people fail to see is that May is buying brown leather trousers because when we Brexit we're going to be waist deep in the brown and smelly stuff. Therefore having brown, easily cleaned leather trousers is good for hiding those stains as you wade through the material....! Also when she realises she has put a load of buffoons in charge of it all and realises the mess that's about to occur then when she c**ps herself it will be really hard to tell!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/12 19:37:25
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
As I usually just stick to the morass that is the US Politics thread, I'm sorry all, if this has been covered. Just a "well done" to our brothers across the pond.
BigWaaagh wrote: As I usually just stick to the morass that is the US Politics thread, I'm sorry all, if this has been covered. Just a "well done" to our brothers across the pond.
BigWaaagh wrote: As I usually just stick to the morass that is the US Politics thread, I'm sorry all, if this has been covered. Just a "well done" to our brothers across the pond.
I am normally against such action but it's time for this group to go.
My only concern is just how effective this will be and whether it is more for general public show than anything realistic. The group can just disband and reform as "Billy Bobs Bunglers" and the government then have to go through the same process.
If anything should have taught us with the IRA (and it doesn't look like the Tories have learnt this lesson) is that forcing groups underground can lead to the opposite result of what you are hoping for. Not only that but it is more difficult to track overall support. Throwing them in jail may actually expose them to other criminal elements of society as well.
Planning and executing attacks is what we want to stop; if it is just to stop some, rather unpleasant people, hurling abuse then there are probably better ways by engaging with those people likely to see reason and strip away their support. If you start banning people groups simply because of verbal abuse then most football teams and their fans would be banned.
I'm also slightly wary of when government deciding who to ban without adequate evidence that they are of a sufficient threat (and hence not going through the judicial system). That can slowly lead to governments deciding what is 'right' and 'wrong' and being ever more 'stringent' in their interpretation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/12 22:40:14
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
