Steve Barclay @SteveBarclay · 3h It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Chief of Staff for No10 Downing Street alongside my responsibilities in the Cabinet Office.
===
Yeh, right.
There's no way he can do this job sensibly with two other roles. So just a shite decision or set up to fail for some reason in Carrie's head?
My assumption is that Barclay was chosen because the only available candidates were identified amongst the fraction of Tory MPs that are still biddable. Presumably all the other potential appointments wouldn't want to work with Johnson on two grounds: (1) the job might not last more than a few days, and (2) everyone now has a pretty good idea of what kind of a creature he is.
Chief of Staff isn't a MP or ministerial role.
Once again it smacks of the panic and desperation in Team Boris (current membership: 3). They did not have time to find a Chief outside of a few close MPs.
What in God's name is in it for Barclay?
It’s like the Hindenburg coming to the rescue of the Titanic - a 2 hour disaster to be followed by a 2 minute one.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Grammars never failed, even if secondary moderns might have
But grammars did fail, because they demanded the existence of sec mods.
Nope, Germany has selection and its non selective schools provide excellent vocational and technical education
Which few people have ever been bothered about in this country.
What the grammar school supporters should advocate is to turn comps into technical schools before they start creating grammars.
Boris mini bounce at a much needed time, Labour lead back clearly below 10%
Much needed for Labour too. It's crucial that Johnson stays in position for at least seven or eight months. Listening to the audience hissing and laughing at him on Any Questions is quite cathartic. I can't see a sliver of hope that he'll recover but there is a danger that a new leader might persuade voters that the problem has gone with him
Steve Barclay @SteveBarclay · 3h It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Chief of Staff for No10 Downing Street alongside my responsibilities in the Cabinet Office.
===
Yeh, right.
There's no way he can do this job sensibly with two other roles. So just a shite decision or set up to fail for some reason in Carrie's head?
My assumption is that Barclay was chosen because the only available candidates were identified amongst the fraction of Tory MPs that are still biddable. Presumably all the other potential appointments wouldn't want to work with Johnson on two grounds: (1) the job might not last more than a few days, and (2) everyone now has a pretty good idea of what kind of a creature he is.
Chief of Staff isn't a MP or ministerial role.
Once again it smacks of the panic and desperation in Team Boris (current membership: 3). They did not have time to find a Chief outside of a few close MPs.
What in God's name is in it for Barclay?
Former Chief of Staff to the PM sounds way cooler than Former Cabinet Office Minister?
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
I dunno. I went to a bog standard, slightly rough comprehensive. My fundamental observation was that there was a good chunk of the kids in each class, maybe 25% or more, who had absolutely no interest in learning, no curiosity about the world, no self-discipline and who viewed every day as just an excuse to mess around from start to finish. They disrupted everyone else. Nothing any teacher did or said made any difference.
Now maybe if they had been shown straight to the brick laying course things would have been different but I doubt it.
Steve Barclay @SteveBarclay · 3h It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Chief of Staff for No10 Downing Street alongside my responsibilities in the Cabinet Office.
===
Yeh, right.
There's no way he can do this job sensibly with two other roles. So just a shite decision or set up to fail for some reason in Carrie's head?
My assumption is that Barclay was chosen because the only available candidates were identified amongst the fraction of Tory MPs that are still biddable. Presumably all the other potential appointments wouldn't want to work with Johnson on two grounds: (1) the job might not last more than a few days, and (2) everyone now has a pretty good idea of what kind of a creature he is.
Chief of Staff isn't a MP or ministerial role.
Once again it smacks of the panic and desperation in Team Boris (current membership: 3). They did not have time to find a Chief outside of a few close MPs.
What in God's name is in it for Barclay?
Former Chief of Staff to the PM sounds way cooler than Former Cabinet Office Minister?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
And training, education and skills shouldn't be things that you finish at 16 or 18 or 21 but rather something which you are continually improving.
I'd like to see everyone have a education/training allowance or tax credit to encourage continual lifetime learning.
Boris mini bounce at a much needed time, Labour lead back clearly below 10%
Much needed for Labour too. It's crucial that Johnson stays in position for at least seven or eight months. Listening to the audience hissing and laughing at him on Any Questions is quite cathartic. I can't see a sliver of hope that he'll recover but there is a danger that a new leader might persuade voters that the problem has gone with him
Must be a nightmare planning tactics in Starmer's office at moment.
Do we go for him or pull back on the pedal and keep him there?
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Grammars never failed, even if secondary moderns might have
But grammars did fail, because they demanded the existence of sec mods.
Why? I always find this an utterly lazy argument. Is it beyond the abilities of mankind to devise a better option than secondary modern schools? It is a failure of educationalists, LA education departments, Dept of Education, successive governments, ministers and society to not demand something better. To suggest there was not a better option is wrong. To be critical of those I list above for endemic failure of those non grammar school pupils is entirely valid. The pupils deserved better and it was possible to provide better with thought, planning, imagination and money.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
Steve Barclay @SteveBarclay · 3h It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Chief of Staff for No10 Downing Street alongside my responsibilities in the Cabinet Office.
===
Yeh, right.
There's no way he can do this job sensibly with two other roles. So just a shite decision or set up to fail for some reason in Carrie's head?
My assumption is that Barclay was chosen because the only available candidates were identified amongst the fraction of Tory MPs that are still biddable. Presumably all the other potential appointments wouldn't want to work with Johnson on two grounds: (1) the job might not last more than a few days, and (2) everyone now has a pretty good idea of what kind of a creature he is.
Chief of Staff isn't a MP or ministerial role.
Once again it smacks of the panic and desperation in Team Boris (current membership: 3). They did not have time to find a Chief outside of a few close MPs.
What in God's name is in it for Barclay?
It’s like the Hindenburg coming to the rescue of the Titanic - a 2 hour disaster to be followed by a 2 minute one.
Steve Barclay @SteveBarclay · 3h It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Chief of Staff for No10 Downing Street alongside my responsibilities in the Cabinet Office.
===
Yeh, right.
There's no way he can do this job sensibly with two other roles. So just a shite decision or set up to fail for some reason in Carrie's head?
My assumption is that Barclay was chosen because the only available candidates were identified amongst the fraction of Tory MPs that are still biddable. Presumably all the other potential appointments wouldn't want to work with Johnson on two grounds: (1) the job might not last more than a few days, and (2) everyone now has a pretty good idea of what kind of a creature he is.
Chief of Staff isn't a MP or ministerial role.
Once again it smacks of the panic and desperation in Team Boris (current membership: 3). They did not have time to find a Chief outside of a few close MPs.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
So does mine. I just don't know who any of them were.
Johnson promising the Express tax cuts literally a week after penning a joint article in S Times saying the NI tax rise had to go ahead no matter what.
Is anyone in the conservative party still being taken in by this lying charlatan?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think we all have family histories of equal length. Starting in the primordial soup.
Johnson promising the Express tax cuts literally a week after penning a joint article in S Times saying the NI tax rise had to go ahead no matter what.
Is anyone in the conservative party still being taken in by this lying charlatan?
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
I dunno. I went to a bog standard, slightly rough comprehensive. My fundamental observation was that there was a good chunk of the kids in each class, maybe 25% or more, who had absolutely no interest in learning, no curiosity about the world, no self-discipline and who viewed every day as just an excuse to mess around from start to finish. They disrupted everyone else. Nothing any teacher did or said made any difference.
Now maybe if they had been shown straight to the brick laying course things would have been different but I doubt it.
Sure, but where does that attitude come from, and how can we overturn it.
If its 25% of a comp, how high it is in a Secondary Modern?
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
I dunno. I went to a bog standard, slightly rough comprehensive. My fundamental observation was that there was a good chunk of the kids in each class, maybe 25% or more, who had absolutely no interest in learning, no curiosity about the world, no self-discipline and who viewed every day as just an excuse to mess around from start to finish. They disrupted everyone else. Nothing any teacher did or said made any difference.
Now maybe if they had been shown straight to the brick laying course things would have been different but I doubt it.
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
I dunno. I went to a bog standard, slightly rough comprehensive. My fundamental observation was that there was a good chunk of the kids in each class, maybe 25% or more, who had absolutely no interest in learning, no curiosity about the world, no self-discipline and who viewed every day as just an excuse to mess around from start to finish. They disrupted everyone else. Nothing any teacher did or said made any difference.
Now maybe if they had been shown straight to the brick laying course things would have been different but I doubt it.
Sure, but where does that attitude come from, and how can we overturn it.
If its 25% of a comp, how high it is in a Secondary Modern?
At the time, being a kid, I was just bemused.
Now I blame the parents and the home life. But then where did the parents learn their attitude?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
Technically ALL our families go way back to the primordial gloop.
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
Well the Sutton Trust - whose whole raison d'etre is improvement in education for the disadvantaged - did a major report on this very thing a few years ago and found overall there was no evidence that Grammar schools caused a reduction in outcomes for the non selective schools in the same counties.
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
I dunno. I went to a bog standard, slightly rough comprehensive. My fundamental observation was that there was a good chunk of the kids in each class, maybe 25% or more, who had absolutely no interest in learning, no curiosity about the world, no self-discipline and who viewed every day as just an excuse to mess around from start to finish. They disrupted everyone else. Nothing any teacher did or said made any difference.
Now maybe if they had been shown straight to the brick laying course things would have been different but I doubt it.
Sure, but where does that attitude come from, and how can we overturn it.
If its 25% of a comp, how high it is in a Secondary Modern?
Probably 1/3 but then most of the bright kids in a selective area will be in a grammar school, not a comp with the disruptive 25%
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
I dunno. I went to a bog standard, slightly rough comprehensive. My fundamental observation was that there was a good chunk of the kids in each class, maybe 25% or more, who had absolutely no interest in learning, no curiosity about the world, no self-discipline and who viewed every day as just an excuse to mess around from start to finish. They disrupted everyone else. Nothing any teacher did or said made any difference.
Now maybe if they had been shown straight to the brick laying course things would have been different but I doubt it.
This was my experience as well. A minority of people who make life a misery for everyone else.
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
I dunno. I went to a bog standard, slightly rough comprehensive. My fundamental observation was that there was a good chunk of the kids in each class, maybe 25% or more, who had absolutely no interest in learning, no curiosity about the world, no self-discipline and who viewed every day as just an excuse to mess around from start to finish. They disrupted everyone else. Nothing any teacher did or said made any difference.
Now maybe if they had been shown straight to the brick laying course things would have been different but I doubt it.
Straight to the borstal might have helped
In pre industrial times most of the bottom 25% would have been agricultural labourers, in Victorian times some would have got a factory job doing routine labour, others ended up in the workhouse.
Now they end up doing mainly routine unskilled work eg in fast food or a supermarket or warehouse or on a building site, or they end up on welfare
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
Technically ALL our families go way back to the primordial gloop.
Of course. But not everyone knows the names of their ancestors beyond a few generations and for many few records were kept. Hence the popularity of all those archive / family history programmes.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
You think that by getting rid of the better performing schools you magically make the worse ones any better? Do you think if we got rid of all the best performing hospitals the worse ones would kill fewer people?
Yours is the lowest common denominator in spades. Yes you would end up with all your judges coming from Comprehensives but they would have had a worse education for it. And the top professionals would all be imported from other countries.
Eh? I'm not advocating for the abolition of private schools or grammar schools. I'm merely showing that his "statistic" is meaningless as a measure of the benefits of grammar schools.
Fair enough and apologies I hadn't reread the whole thread properly. I still maintain that abolishing Grammars and Private schools would seriously damage education in England not improve it. And that from a Comprehensive boy.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Johnson promising the Express tax cuts literally a week after penning a joint article in S Times saying the NI tax rise had to go ahead no matter what.
Is anyone in the conservative party still being taken in by this lying charlatan?
Lots of people don't think of NI as a tax.
And indeed for oldies it isn't.
Q: What's the only tax that *is* predominantly levied on olds? A: IHT, albeit that it only becomes payable when they are in a cadaverous state.
IHT currently raises a little over £5bn per year. If I were in Johnson's (or his successor's) place, then I would instruct the Chancellor to announce the outright abolition of IHT in Spring 2024 and then immediately go to the country. The olds, especially very wealthy olds, and their expectant heirs will be thrilled to bits, and the Treasury can always increase the OAP arse wiping tax Health and Social Care levy from 1.25% to 2% at the same time which would, according to recent projections, raise around £7bn and therefore screw the entire cost out of the working age population and their employers, with £2bn to spare. This additional money could be used to double the winter fuel allowance as well. That's the core vote bought off at everyone else's expense for another term. Result.
Steve Barclay @SteveBarclay · 3h It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Chief of Staff for No10 Downing Street alongside my responsibilities in the Cabinet Office.
===
Yeh, right.
There's no way he can do this job sensibly with two other roles. So just a shite decision or set up to fail for some reason in Carrie's head?
My assumption is that Barclay was chosen because the only available candidates were identified amongst the fraction of Tory MPs that are still biddable. Presumably all the other potential appointments wouldn't want to work with Johnson on two grounds: (1) the job might not last more than a few days, and (2) everyone now has a pretty good idea of what kind of a creature he is.
Chief of Staff isn't a MP or ministerial role.
Once again it smacks of the panic and desperation in Team Boris (current membership: 3). They did not have time to find a Chief outside of a few close MPs.
What in God's name is in it for Barclay?
If he thinks he has no other prospects under someone else then being chief dogsbody to the incumbent is still something.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Yep. Comprehensive school and Kingston Poly. Nice bloke too, you really wouldn't know. Indeed I only found out when he upgraded his season ticket to a corporate box at Old Trafford, and googled his company.
Boris mini bounce at a much needed time, Labour lead back clearly below 10%
Do you think the fightback has been achieved by the Savile slur?
Crosby can be a shit but he is also a shit who knows how to win
You are better than that.
You have a faith and believe in a Christian moral code. Johnson operates from the gutter and he has done so since his days of colluding with Darius Guppy.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
Technically ALL our families go way back to the primordial gloop.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Yep. Comprehensive school and Kingston Poly. Nice bloke too, you really wouldn't know. Indeed I only found out when he upgraded his season ticket to a corporate box at Old Trafford, and googled his company.
Hold on. You just said he was a nice bloke and then followed up by revealing that he is a Man U fan!
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Yep. Comprehensive school and Kingston Poly. Nice bloke too, you really wouldn't know. Indeed I only found out when he upgraded his season ticket to a corporate box at Old Trafford, and googled his company.
Hold on. You just said he was a nice bloke and then followed up by revealing that he is a Man U fan!
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
That will buy a lot of Marjorie Taylor Greene posters.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
Technically ALL our families go way back to the primordial gloop.
Of course. But not everyone knows the names of their ancestors beyond a few generations and for many few records were kept. Hence the popularity of all those archive / family history programmes.
And not everyone feels the need to bore the rest of us about it.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Am I the only poster here who doesn't know who Charles is in the real world?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Am I the only poster here who doesn't know who Charles is in the real world?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Am I the only poster here who doesn't know who Charles is in the real world?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Am I the only poster here who doesn't know who Charles is in the real world?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Am I the only poster here who doesn't know who Charles is in the real world?
I was most disappointed he did not have a suitably posh quadruple-barrelled surname.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Am I the only poster here who doesn't know who Charles is in the real world?
Duke of Rothesay
I had to look that up. Now you're just being silly.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
Technically ALL our families go way back to the primordial gloop.
If you met my family you might consider not much progress has been achieved since that gloop.
Penny Mordaunt became the latest Minister to be put on 'resignation watch' tonight as sources in the pro-Boris Johnson camp said a no-confidence vote was inevitable.
According to experts, there are a number of answers. First, although Israel’s headline vaccination rate once sat at the top of all vaccine charts, it has gradually slipped down a middling position.
But more importantly, perhaps, vaccination rates among the vulnerable are not as good as they might be. While in the UK nearly all the most vulnerable are fully vaccinated, in Israel 10 per cent or more of the over 60s remain unprotected.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Am I the only poster here who doesn't know who Charles is in the real world?
Duke of Rothesay
No, that Charles was not as posh as our Charles
Haha! He was a great poster, showed me a world I don't (and likely never will) have any experience of.
But he was hilariously out of touch on stuff like the UC earnings taper rate/marginal rate of tax. That some people can't get a grip on that explains the prejudices of some of those at the top.
Penny Mordaunt became the latest Minister to be put on 'resignation watch' tonight as sources in the pro-Boris Johnson camp said a no-confidence vote was inevitable.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Am I the only poster here who doesn't know who Charles is in the real world?
Me neither.
After all, it doesn't really matter. This is a board about politics, ideas and betting. For gossip go to the other PB.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Why are you in awe of people who inherit wealth? They are not special. I'm rather proud of the fact that I did alright and didn't.
Steve Barclay @SteveBarclay · 3h It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Chief of Staff for No10 Downing Street alongside my responsibilities in the Cabinet Office.
===
Yeh, right.
There's no way he can do this job sensibly with two other roles. So just a shite decision or set up to fail for some reason in Carrie's head?
My assumption is that Barclay was chosen because the only available candidates were identified amongst the fraction of Tory MPs that are still biddable. Presumably all the other potential appointments wouldn't want to work with Johnson on two grounds: (1) the job might not last more than a few days, and (2) everyone now has a pretty good idea of what kind of a creature he is.
Chief of Staff isn't a MP or ministerial role.
Once again it smacks of the panic and desperation in Team Boris (current membership: 3). They did not have time to find a Chief outside of a few close MPs.
What in God's name is in it for Barclay?
It’s like the Hindenburg coming to the rescue of the Titanic - a 2 hour disaster to be followed by a 2 minute one.
Given she’s just reiterated her 1947 commitment to serve, and signed the letter “your servant” - I very much doubt she has any intention of stepping down until a higher authority so decides.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Why are you in awe of people who inherit wealth? They are not special. I'm rather proud of the fact that I did alright and didn't.
Fair enough, though Charles went to Eton and Oxford and has his own career in financial services so it is not as if he just relied solely on family wealth
I forget the precise terms of reference, but my impression is that OGH's invitation to March 2nd PB-Fest 2022 is an open to all PBers past and present, human or not?
Regardless of race, religion, creed, party, income, ideology, woke, wack, woof, weave or shoe size?
OR previous / current status re: posting on PB?
May the last be first . . . and may the Devil NOT take the hindmost!
I predicted it'd be 6-7 this morning (I am Mystic Nick). As i said, I think that's the underlying position, with a bounce upwards when there's a new scandal, settling back when nothing much new has emerged for a few days. (No Opinium tomght?)
HYUFD isn't wrong that that is a recoverable lead two years out from the election. The MPs who've declared no conifdence will be in an awkward position if the challenge fizzles, though.
If they aren't rehearsing London Bridge I'd be more worried.
It has to be massive. And perfect. I have an insight into what happens if she passes at Balmoral and it's suitably complex.
Better get Bozza out of Downing Street by then or otherwise...
I'm just glad she made it out of the worst of the pandemic. A demise in mid-2020 would have been terrible.
I am not a Monarchist, but I hope she goes on and on. Besides, the Queen deserves better than an accidentally comedic eulogy from bumbling Billy Bunter.
If they aren't rehearsing London Bridge I'd be more worried.
It has to be massive. And perfect. I have an insight into what happens if she passes at Balmoral and it's suitably complex.
Better get Bozza out of Downing Street by then or otherwise...
I'm just glad she made it out of the worst of the pandemic. A demise in mid-2020 would have been terrible.
I am not a Monarchist, but I hope she goes on and on. Besides, the Queen deserves better than an accidentally comedic eulogy from bumbling Billy Bunter.
May she go on living until she no longer enjoys it. Most of the her time, anyway.
And from the looks of things, from the first she's always looked like someone who is very comfortable (again most of the time) in her own skin.
I predicted it'd be 6-7 this morning (I am Mystic Nick). As i said, I think that's the underlying position, with a bounce upwards when there's a new scandal, settling back when nothing much new has emerged for a few days. (No Opinium tomght?)
HYUFD isn't wrong that that is a recoverable lead two years out from the election. The MPs who've declared no conifdence will be in an awkward position if the challenge fizzles, though.
Nothing new has emerged for a few days?
This could be a significant decline, but equally it could be MoE.
We are at this polling point (which I wasn't expecting) before the economic tsunami hits (which I was expending).
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I was momentarily quite - well, excited is the wrong word, but interested - when my Dad and I managed to trace our family tree back to King John. Then a little back of a fag packet maths worked out that EVERYONE is descended from King John - or at least, if you have British ancestry, the odds of NOT having King John as an ancestor are so small as to be negligible. So not quite so exciting. But actually slightly more interesting.
Penny Mordaunt became the latest Minister to be put on 'resignation watch' tonight as sources in the pro-Boris Johnson camp said a no-confidence vote was inevitable.
Would catapult her straight into the leadership race as the only one with the backbone.
The timing for Rishi must be tricky. Knowing when to jump....
BTW, the gossip in the bar at the SW Conference was that at least two Cabinet Ministers have fully manned operations for their leadership bid up and running.
Pretty poor that Labour just can't seem to make headway in the polls at the moment. Having said that, even when at their worst, and Labour at their best, the Cons have never actually got less than 30% in any GE since the war.... possibly since ever. And likewise, Labour rarely manage more than 40%. 1997 and 2001 were the best they managed in more modern three party politics times.
The thing about 1997 was as much the boundaries as anything else. Labour managed a 12.5% lead and got a majority of 179. The Cons managed 11.5% last time and only got a majority of 80.
Pretty poor that Labour just can't seem to make headway in the polls at the moment. Having said that, even when at their worst, and Labour at their best, the Cons have never actually got less than 30% in any GE since the war.... possibly since ever. And likewise, Labour rarely manage more than 40%. 1997 and 2001 were the best they managed in more modern three party politics times.
The thing about 1997 was as much the boundaries as anything else. Labour managed a 12.5% lead and got a majority of 179. The Cons managed 11.5% last time and only got a majority of 80.
Now that it's after midnight and officially the 6th, we have now gone two full months without any Tory poll leads. The last was Redfield & Wilton's poll on 6th December.
Penny Mordaunt became the latest Minister to be put on 'resignation watch' tonight as sources in the pro-Boris Johnson camp said a no-confidence vote was inevitable.
Would catapult her straight into the leadership race as the only one with the backbone.
The timing for Rishi must be tricky. Knowing when to jump....
BTW, the gossip in the bar at the SW Conference was that at least two Cabinet Ministers have fully manned operations for their leadership bid up and running.
Have they installed telephone lines! (Sorry I am showing my age here) 👍
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I was momentarily quite - well, excited is the wrong word, but interested - when my Dad and I managed to trace our family tree back to King John. Then a little back of a fag packet maths worked out that EVERYONE is descended from King John - or at least, if you have British ancestry, the odds of NOT having King John as an ancestor are so small as to be negligible. So not quite so exciting. But actually slightly more interesting.
Still impressive - in sociological, historical, cultural ways for sure - to be able to document & connect the dots.
EDIT - Relative of mine worked hard trying to qualify for Daughters of the American Revolution, along with other ladies in her genealogy club. Sadly, given fact immediate ancestors were nearly all Irish Catholic immigrants, best she could achieve was Daughters of the War of 1812.
I'm a fan of exclusive/breaking royal stories which generally amount to 'It's a monarchy'. Like this one from the Express, with the startlingly fresh revelation that Charles fears the moment he becomes King because 'it will inevitably mean the loss of his beloved mother'
I predicted it'd be 6-7 this morning (I am Mystic Nick). As i said, I think that's the underlying position, with a bounce upwards when there's a new scandal, settling back when nothing much new has emerged for a few days. (No Opinium tomght?)
HYUFD isn't wrong that that is a recoverable lead two years out from the election. The MPs who've declared no conifdence will be in an awkward position if the challenge fizzles, though.
None were in the ruling Clique though were they? So it means retaliation by lack of reward, but they weren't likely to get that anyway.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I was momentarily quite - well, excited is the wrong word, but interested - when my Dad and I managed to trace our family tree back to King John. Then a little back of a fag packet maths worked out that EVERYONE is descended from King John - or at least, if you have British ancestry, the odds of NOT having King John as an ancestor are so small as to be negligible. So not quite so exciting. But actually slightly more interesting.
I have no British ancestry at all. In fact, given that part of my Italian family originated in Southern Spain and another part was Jewish, a significant part was probably Middle Eastern at some point.
I mainly find it interesting because you see the personal connection with historical movements - whether emigration or expulsion or wars or conquest or whatever. It's like seeing history in miniature.
I predicted it'd be 6-7 this morning (I am Mystic Nick). As i said, I think that's the underlying position, with a bounce upwards when there's a new scandal, settling back when nothing much new has emerged for a few days. (No Opinium tomght?)
HYUFD isn't wrong that that is a recoverable lead two years out from the election. The MPs who've declared no conifdence will be in an awkward position if the challenge fizzles, though.
Nothing new has emerged for a few days?
This could be a significant decline, but equally it could be MoE.
We are at this polling point (which I wasn't expecting) before the economic tsunami hits (which I was expending).
Yes, I'd say nothing very new has happened that would interest most voters. Various advisers who they've never heard of coming and going, a few MPs who they've also not heard of sending letters, plus a report of a picture of Johnson holding a glass of beer.
There is also, I think, a degree of acceptance that the tsunami is inevitable post-pandemic, but how it's handled will be crucial. Any more reports of companies having dubious claims written off with an airy shrug and there will be a serious backlash over rising taxes. I do think the Tories are in trouble, but it's not a slam-dunk.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
Comments
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
What the grammar school supporters should advocate is to turn comps into technical schools before they start creating grammars.
Now maybe if they had been shown straight to the brick laying course things would have been different but I doubt it.
@montie
·
Feb 3
Who would now go and work in No10? Sooner rather than later Boris will let you down.
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1489332561524494344
===
We have an answer now: Steve Barclay.
I'd like to see everyone have a education/training allowance or tax credit to encourage continual lifetime learning.
Do we go for him or pull back on the pedal and keep him there?
I always find this an utterly lazy argument.
Is it beyond the abilities of mankind to devise a better option than secondary modern schools?
It is a failure of educationalists, LA education departments, Dept of Education, successive governments, ministers and society to not demand something better.
To suggest there was not a better option is wrong. To be critical of those I list above for endemic failure of those non grammar school pupils is entirely valid. The pupils deserved better and it was possible to provide better with thought, planning, imagination and money.
Is anyone in the conservative party still being taken in by this lying charlatan?
I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories.
Some are better researched, known and documented.
How far back can you trace yours?
And indeed for oldies it isn't.
If its 25% of a comp, how high it is in a Secondary Modern?
Now I blame the parents and the home life. But then where did the parents learn their attitude?
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
Now they end up doing mainly routine unskilled work eg in fast food or a supermarket or warehouse or on a building site, or they end up on welfare
A: IHT, albeit that it only becomes payable when they are in a cadaverous state.
IHT currently raises a little over £5bn per year. If I were in Johnson's (or his successor's) place, then I would instruct the Chancellor to announce the outright abolition of IHT in Spring 2024 and then immediately go to the country. The olds, especially very wealthy olds, and their expectant heirs will be thrilled to bits, and the Treasury can always increase the OAP arse wiping tax Health and Social Care levy from 1.25% to 2% at the same time which would, according to recent projections, raise around £7bn and therefore screw the entire cost out of the working age population and their employers, with £2bn to spare. This additional money could be used to double the winter fuel allowance as well. That's the core vote bought off at everyone else's expense for another term. Result.
You have a faith and believe in a Christian moral code. Johnson operates from the gutter and he has done so since his days of colluding with Darius Guppy.
Goodnight world, and to all our ancestors.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10480891/Penny-Mordaunt-latest-MP-resignation-watch-Partygate-scandal.html
But more importantly, perhaps, vaccination rates among the vulnerable are not as good as they might be. While in the UK nearly all the most vulnerable are fully vaccinated, in Israel 10 per cent or more of the over 60s remain unprotected.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/israels-rise-covid-deaths-important-lesson-uk-vaccines/
From memory I am not sure it quite true to say "nearly all" in the UK, but better than many other nations.
But he was hilariously out of touch on stuff like the UC earnings taper rate/marginal rate of tax. That some people can't get a grip on that explains the prejudices of some of those at the top.
If the Star story is correct (a BIG if) the Queen (looking thinner, again) may be orf for her big sleep….
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1490090424928804870?s=21
Would catapult her straight into the leadership race as the only one with the backbone.
After all, it doesn't really matter. This is a board about politics, ideas and betting. For gossip go to the other PB.
It has to be massive. And perfect. I have an insight into what happens if she passes at Balmoral and it's suitably complex.
Yes, well as the Queen is of a certain age... a certain amount of planning for next year is a good idea.
Regardless of race, religion, creed, party, income, ideology, woke, wack, woof, weave or shoe size?
OR previous / current status re: posting on PB?
May the last be first . . . and may the Devil NOT take the hindmost!
HYUFD isn't wrong that that is a recoverable lead two years out from the election. The MPs who've declared no conifdence will be in an awkward position if the challenge fizzles, though.
And from the looks of things, from the first she's always looked like someone who is very comfortable (again most of the time) in her own skin.
This could be a significant decline, but equally it could be MoE.
We are at this polling point (which I wasn't expecting) before the economic tsunami hits (which I was expending).
Then a little back of a fag packet maths worked out that EVERYONE is descended from King John - or at least, if you have British ancestry, the odds of NOT having King John as an ancestor are so small as to be negligible. So not quite so exciting.
But actually slightly more interesting.
BTW, the gossip in the bar at the SW Conference was that at least two Cabinet Ministers have fully manned operations for their leadership bid up and running.
Having said that, even when at their worst, and Labour at their best, the Cons have never actually got less than 30% in any GE since the war.... possibly since ever.
And likewise, Labour rarely manage more than 40%. 1997 and 2001 were the best they managed in more modern three party politics times.
The thing about 1997 was as much the boundaries as anything else. Labour managed a 12.5% lead and got a majority of 179. The Cons managed 11.5% last time and only got a majority of 80.
EDIT - Relative of mine worked hard trying to qualify for Daughters of the American Revolution, along with other ladies in her genealogy club. Sadly, given fact immediate ancestors were nearly all Irish Catholic immigrants, best she could achieve was Daughters of the War of 1812.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1557982/Prince-Charles-Queen-news-terrified-ont
Or of course the classic 'he sees it as his birthright' story
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/inside-prince-charles-plans-if-queen-elizabeth-steps-down/
I mainly find it interesting because you see the personal connection with historical movements - whether emigration or expulsion or wars or conquest or whatever. It's like seeing history in miniature.
Goodnight PB.
There is also, I think, a degree of acceptance that the tsunami is inevitable post-pandemic, but how it's handled will be crucial. Any more reports of companies having dubious claims written off with an airy shrug and there will be a serious backlash over rising taxes. I do think the Tories are in trouble, but it's not a slam-dunk.