So will Americans back a criminal for President? – politicalbetting.com
On the face of it we are heading for a Trump Biden rerun in the 2024 presidential election. It would appear that the only way that 81 year-old Joe can defend the presidency is if his opponent is Trump.
Joe Biden is 81, as the header reminds us, but this does not matter. Americans vote for old politicians. There are 14 members of Congress who are older than Joe Biden. Age is not a factor.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
This could become an election issue if any U.S. politicians ever worked out what was wrong with their healthcare system, rather than complaining about drug company profits (which aren't the greatest problem).
The growth in the money going to the middlemen is quite astonishing, and gets very little notice compared to "pharma profits".
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
The interesting scenario is if the Trump trials actually happen and DJT gets into serious trouble.
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
The interesting scenario is if the Trump trials actually happen and DJT gets into serious trouble.
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
You're assuming the party is monolithic. As Robert regularly points out, it's not.
It's hard to put numbers in it, but there are Trump cultists, Trump haters, and those who might like what he peddles, but would be fine with someone else delivering it if they have a better chance of being elected.
If Trump isn't the candidate, the the GOP needs someone extreme enough to get the cultists to turn out, yet moderate enough not to completely alienate the centre. I'm not convinced that's possible.
The far-right Polish Government, seeking re-election in October (with a fair chance of success), has decided to call a referendum on the same day about the EU plan for countries that don't take many migrants to contribute to the cost of those who do. The wording is reminiscent of those Daily Express vodoo polls:
“Do you support the reception of thousands of irregular migrants from the Middle East and Africa by the forced relocation scheme imposed by the EU bureaucrats”
Incidentally when are we expecting Dorries to resign as an MP...?
In one sense, the day before yesterday. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer work bank holidays? Or do you mean when will the by-election be called?
Reported that she has not submitted the letter. She *published* her resignation letter. But didn't actually send it to the person who needs to be sent it to actually resign...
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
The interesting scenario is if the Trump trials actually happen and DJT gets into serious trouble.
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
You're assuming the party is monolithic. As Robert regularly points out, it's not.
It's hard to put numbers in it, but there are Trump cultists, Trump haters, and those who might like what he peddles, but would be fine with someone else delivering it if they have a better chance of being elected.
If Trump isn't the candidate, the the GOP needs someone extreme enough to get the cultists to turn out, yet moderate enough not to completely alienate the centre. I'm not convinced that's possible.
All parties are coalitions. Sometimes you get the party and the party's voters being very separate, and I sense the GOP is like that.
Top brass may want rid of Trump, their voters do not. Whilst I cannot conceive how Trump would win (as he needs either a Biden collapse or millions to vote for him who didn't last time), I can't see how the party gets a better result with another candidate.
And lets be honest. Mining the shitkicker vote does the GOP well. If a load of angry and stupid people are whipped up to fear the librul wome elite machine which is stealing the election, then they're likely to stay in your camp and keep giving you donations.
I recall having this debate with Charles in the early days of the pandemic.
A recent paper studying prison populations seems to demonstrate that the level of viral exposure does determine to some extent whether or not an individual gets infected with Covid.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
The interesting scenario is if the Trump trials actually happen and DJT gets into serious trouble.
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
You're assuming the party is monolithic. As Robert regularly points out, it's not.
It's hard to put numbers in it, but there are Trump cultists, Trump haters, and those who might like what he peddles, but would be fine with someone else delivering it if they have a better chance of being elected.
If Trump isn't the candidate, the the GOP needs someone extreme enough to get the cultists to turn out, yet moderate enough not to completely alienate the centre. I'm not convinced that's possible.
Ramaswamy seems to be positioning himself as the "Trumpism without Trump" candidate. If Trump stays in, it's a losing strategy, but he seems well-placed to pick up many of Trump's votes if the Great One goes. But he is a bit far along the kookiness axis at the moment - needs to rein in the anti-vax stuff which even Trump has steered clear of.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
The interesting scenario is if the Trump trials actually happen and DJT gets into serious trouble.
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
You're assuming the party is monolithic. As Robert regularly points out, it's not.
It's hard to put numbers in it, but there are Trump cultists, Trump haters, and those who might like what he peddles, but would be fine with someone else delivering it if they have a better chance of being elected.
If Trump isn't the candidate, the the GOP needs someone extreme enough to get the cultists to turn out, yet moderate enough not to completely alienate the centre. I'm not convinced that's possible.
All parties are coalitions. Sometimes you get the party and the party's voters being very separate, and I sense the GOP is like that.
Top brass may want rid of Trump, their voters do not. Whilst I cannot conceive how Trump would win (as he needs either a Biden collapse or millions to vote for him who didn't last time), I can't see how the party gets a better result with another candidate.
And lets be honest. Mining the shitkicker vote does the GOP well. If a load of angry and stupid people are whipped up to fear the librul wome elite machine which is stealing the election, then they're likely to stay in your camp and keep giving you donations.
A significant minority of their voters do want to get rid of Trump.
Their problem is analogous to that of the Tories with Brexit.
They've gone all in on one thing, and it's alienated the majority of the electorate - but there's no easy way too step away from it without alienating those who still believe.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
The interesting scenario is if the Trump trials actually happen and DJT gets into serious trouble.
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
You're assuming the party is monolithic. As Robert regularly points out, it's not.
It's hard to put numbers in it, but there are Trump cultists, Trump haters, and those who might like what he peddles, but would be fine with someone else delivering it if they have a better chance of being elected.
If Trump isn't the candidate, the the GOP needs someone extreme enough to get the cultists to turn out, yet moderate enough not to completely alienate the centre. I'm not convinced that's possible.
Ramaswamy seems to be positioning himself as the "Trumpism without Trump" candidate. If Trump stays in, it's a losing strategy, but he seems well-placed to pick up many of Trump's votes if the Great One goes. But he is a bit far along the kookiness axis at the moment - needs to rein in the anti-vax stuff which even Trump has steered clear of.
Trumpism without Trump might get the nomination. I don't think it can win the general election..
Incidentally when are we expecting Dorries to resign as an MP...?
In one sense, the day before yesterday. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer work bank holidays? Or do you mean when will the by-election be called?
The speculation is that it will be called on October 5, which is immediately after the Tory conference (which normally gives a short-term boost, though who knows these days) and immediately before the Labour conference (so they don't get the boost). Snags are that if the Conservatives lose then it wipes out the potential boost, and of course Tory activists at the conference can't help in the final days of campaigning. So they might go short (minimises the time for the other parties to canvass and recanvass every village, and if they lose they can try to reset at the conference) or go long (and hope for a change in fortunes).
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
If the Republicans pick anyone other than Trump, then Trump (if still alive) will do everything he can to sabotage the Republican candidate.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
This appears to be a favoured tactic of the current Government. Decree something will happen, but don’t provide any resource so it actually can happen.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
Incidentally when are we expecting Dorries to resign as an MP...?
In one sense, the day before yesterday. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer work bank holidays? Or do you mean when will the by-election be called?
Reported that she has not submitted the letter. She *published* her resignation letter. But didn't actually send it to the person who needs to be sent it to actually resign...
Nadine Dorries needs to have contacted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds (replacing Boris, funnily enough) which is why I asked if he works on bank holidays.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
The interesting scenario is if the Trump trials actually happen and DJT gets into serious trouble.
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
You're assuming the party is monolithic. As Robert regularly points out, it's not.
It's hard to put numbers in it, but there are Trump cultists, Trump haters, and those who might like what he peddles, but would be fine with someone else delivering it if they have a better chance of being elected.
If Trump isn't the candidate, the the GOP needs someone extreme enough to get the cultists to turn out, yet moderate enough not to completely alienate the centre. I'm not convinced that's possible.
Ramaswamy seems to be positioning himself as the "Trumpism without Trump" candidate. If Trump stays in, it's a losing strategy, but he seems well-placed to pick up many of Trump's votes if the Great One goes. But he is a bit far along the kookiness axis at the moment - needs to rein in the anti-vax stuff which even Trump has steered clear of.
Trumpism without Trump might get the nomination. I don't think it can win the general election..
Trumpism without Trump was supposed to be Ron DeSantis's schtick but he went way over the top. Ramaswamy risks doing the same.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
A town councillor? Absolutely. Some of them are as thick as brick mince.
From my time chairing our Town Council, I remember one guy who thought another councillor shouldn’t be allowed to vote on any environmental issues because she was a member of the Green Party and therefore it was a conflict of interest.
Or another guy who voted against an installation of some stained glass swifts on a public building by the town’s Arts Society because “I went to Rio de Janeiro once and it was full of graffiti and I didn’t like it”.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
This appears to be a favoured tactic of the current Government. Decree something will happen, but don’t provide any resource so it actually can happen.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Mr. Bondegezou, while I agree this is a case of having a headline not a real policy, this is far from the first time we've had governmeny by headline.
It feels more blatant now. In the past, there’d’ve been an announcement of more money, even if the more money had already been announced several times before.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
This appears to be a favoured tactic of the current Government. Decree something will happen, but don’t provide any resource so it actually can happen.
And then blame everyone else - especially the woke liberal elite - for their failure. The police and justice system issues are mind-boggling. They are supposed to be a law and order party, then collapse policing so that some whole towns found themselves with a handful of officers to cover quiet periods like a Friday night. And gutting the funding for the courts so that whatever criminals whats left of the police managed to nick don't get prosecuted for a long time.
We seem to spend an awful lot of money to get threadbare and barely functional services. Where does all the money go...?
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
A town councillor? Absolutely. Some of them are as thick as brick mince.
From my time chairing our Town Council, I remember one guy who thought another councillor shouldn’t be allowed to vote on any environmental issues because she was a member of the Green Party and therefore it was a conflict of interest.
Or another guy who voted against an installation of some stained glass swifts on a public building by the town’s Arts Society because “I went to Rio de Janeiro once and it was full of graffiti and I didn’t like it”.
Michael Gilbert, 1969, after a vote where a councillor accidentally voted against his own motion.
'The Mayoress thought she needed to have a word with George's father about this. George's father was over ninety, but he had a lot more sense than George.'
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
Mr. Bondegezou, while I agree this is a case of having a headline not a real policy, this is far from the first time we've had governmeny by headline.
There is a difference. Brown was notorious for announcing the same policy a number of times. But there was an actual policy. Money being spent providing whatever service the announcement was for. This lot announce something a number of times but there isn't actually anything happening besides the announcement.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
but that is not my question - i was asking why he was arrested (as the story is behind a paywall)
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
This appears to be a favoured tactic of the current Government. Decree something will happen, but don’t provide any resource so it actually can happen.
And then blame everyone else - especially the woke liberal elite - for their failure. The police and justice system issues are mind-boggling. They are supposed to be a law and order party, then collapse policing so that some whole towns found themselves with a handful of officers to cover quiet periods like a Friday night. And gutting the funding for the courts so that whatever criminals whats left of the police managed to nick don't get prosecuted for a long time.
We seem to spend an awful lot of money to get threadbare and barely functional services. Where does all the money go...?
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
This appears to be a favoured tactic of the current Government. Decree something will happen, but don’t provide any resource so it actually can happen.
And then blame everyone else - especially the woke liberal elite - for their failure. The police and justice system issues are mind-boggling. They are supposed to be a law and order party, then collapse policing so that some whole towns found themselves with a handful of officers to cover quiet periods like a Friday night. And gutting the funding for the courts so that whatever criminals whats left of the police managed to nick don't get prosecuted for a long time.
We seem to spend an awful lot of money to get threadbare and barely functional services. Where does all the money go...?
Middlemen, house price inflation and social care.
Sometimes, all at the same time.
(Bigger picture is decades of too much borrowing for immediate consumption and not enough saving or investment. Those decisions are pretty much bound to bite us on the bum at some point, and that point looks like it's about now. And there's little point complaining to current politicians, because the relevant decisions were taken by us/our parents/our grandparents long ago.)
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
This appears to be a favoured tactic of the current Government. Decree something will happen, but don’t provide any resource so it actually can happen.
And then blame everyone else - especially the woke liberal elite - for their failure. The police and justice system issues are mind-boggling. They are supposed to be a law and order party, then collapse policing so that some whole towns found themselves with a handful of officers to cover quiet periods like a Friday night. And gutting the funding for the courts so that whatever criminals whats left of the police managed to nick don't get prosecuted for a long time.
We seem to spend an awful lot of money to get threadbare and barely functional services. Where does all the money go...?
(To be fair to Oxfordshire County Council, its current administration absolutely recognises the problem and is trying to fix it. The previous administration didn’t.)
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
There were a number of tweets, apparently. The Telegraph article ends:-
Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union, said: “Northamptonshire police have made a serious mistake in this case. Defending free speech isn’t a crime and Cllr Stevens should never have been arrested, let alone held in custody for nine hours. This episode highlights the need for the police to receive proper free speech training.”
A Northamptonshire Police spokesman said: “On Aug 2, Northamptonshire Police received a report of a hate crime regarding posts made on social media.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
If the video is hate speech such that re-twating it is an arrest able matter, did the police request a take down?
Joe Biden is 81, as the header reminds us, but this does not matter. Americans vote for old politicians. There are 14 members of Congress who are older than Joe Biden. Age is not a factor.
Actually he is 80, like me. He was born 20/11/1942
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
but that is not my question - i was asking why he was arrested (as the story is behind a paywall)
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
If the video is hate speech such that re-twating it is an arrest able matter, did the police request a take down?
as far as I can tell from the posts below ,isnt the video about defending somebody's right to pray outside an abortion clinic? If so what are the police getting involved for?
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
but that is not my question - i was asking why he was arrested (as the story is behind a paywall)
Yes, I know that was your question, but you also made a stupid parenthetical comment, so I responded to your stupid parenthetical comment.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
This appears to be a favoured tactic of the current Government. Decree something will happen, but don’t provide any resource so it actually can happen.
And then blame everyone else - especially the woke liberal elite - for their failure. The police and justice system issues are mind-boggling. They are supposed to be a law and order party, then collapse policing so that some whole towns found themselves with a handful of officers to cover quiet periods like a Friday night. And gutting the funding for the courts so that whatever criminals whats left of the police managed to nick don't get prosecuted for a long time.
We seem to spend an awful lot of money to get threadbare and barely functional services. Where does all the money go...?
Middlemen, house price inflation and social care.
Sometimes, all at the same time.
(Bigger picture is decades of too much borrowing for immediate consumption and not enough saving or investment. Those decisions are pretty much bound to bite us on the bum at some point, and that point looks like it's about now. And there's little point complaining to current politicians, because the relevant decisions were taken by us/our parents/our grandparents long ago.)
It also relates to the gold plating of governmental actions. Which results in either “we can do this” or “nothing can be done”
Some years ago, the council removed a small playground from a piece of ground shut round the corner from where I lived. It was relocated from our ward to one where the locals had voted for the ruling group on the council.
No money to keep it up, apparently. Then a neighbour mentioned that she was an ex-Economist journalist and asked for interviews.
£30,000 was discovered in spare council funds, overnight, and a brand new playground installed.
The area of this playground was about 10 meters by 10 meters, with half a dozen play items. Most of them quite simple - a seesaw etc..,
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
but that is not my question - i was asking why he was arrested (as the story is behind a paywall)
Yes, I know that was your question, but you also made a stupid parenthetical comment, so I responded to your stupid parenthetical comment.
Joe Biden is 81, as the header reminds us, but this does not matter. Americans vote for old politicians. There are 14 members of Congress who are older than Joe Biden. Age is not a factor.
Actually he is 80, like me. He was born 20/11/1942
o/t but some nice archaeology - a reassessment of the Neandertal funeral flowers theory that is less convinced about the wreaths etc than some (the pollen evidence might be from burrowing bees), but re-emphasises the care taken in burial.
Joe Biden is 81, as the header reminds us, but this does not matter. Americans vote for old politicians. There are 14 members of Congress who are older than Joe Biden. Age is not a factor.
Actually he is 80, like me. He was born 20/11/1942
Cool. So make that 15 members of Congress older than Joe Biden, and more in their 70s, so it is hard to see voters holding President Biden's age against him. Donald Trump is 77. https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
People make allegations, spurious or otherwise, all the time though and the Police don’t follow each and every one up and neither should they.
Quite frankly they don’t have the resource and this specific case seems a waste of time and effort.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
If the video is hate speech such that re-twating it is an arrest able matter, did the police request a take down?
as far as I can tell from the posts below ,isnt the video about defending somebody's right to pray outside an abortion clinic? If so what are the police getting involved for?
According to the article he also retweets content from an anti-LGBT preacher and shares content of Koran-burning video which is what got PC Plod interested in him.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
but that is not my question - i was asking why he was arrested (as the story is behind a paywall)
Yes, I know that was your question, but you also made a stupid parenthetical comment, so I responded to your stupid parenthetical comment.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
That is quite a misquote there Carnyx. What the study actually said was that Grammar schools failed to improve the grades of the highest performing students.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
People make allegations all the time though and the Police don’t follow each and every one up.
Is it really "hard to see" Biden beating anyone but Trump ?
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked. The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
It would bring back some number of NeverTrump Republicans at least, but given most of the candidates are indistinguishable from Trump on the issues and fully support Trump (Pence for instance still maintains he will indeed vote for Trump despite saying he should not be President), it won't bring back as many as they'd hope.
Another reason many of the nervous will stick with Trump - they worry he really will run anyway, and even if doesn't they don't think the others will do better.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Ah, the Hyacinth Bouquet/Bucket approach - your point one. Of course. To generate future Tory voters at the taxpayer's expense, a cynic might suggest (and find his suspicions confirmed by the frantic defence of the grammar vs the rest system on PB comments). The equivalent of boob jobs on the NHS (when they are for purely cosmetic reasons, rather than health-related ones).
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
That is quite a misquote there Carnyx. What the study actually said was that Grammar schools failed to improve the grades of the highest performing students.
Which is probably true, although it depends on how you define 'highest performing students.' In my experience (and I have taught in them) they make it much easier for the next level down to concentrate and work which certainly lifts their grades.
The real problem is that they take only a very small group, much too young. If selection were at 14 (as Leicester tried in the 1950s) it would make a lot more sense.
It might also kick some of the stupid snobbery about practical subjects into touch.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
People make allegations all the time though and the Police don’t follow each and every one up.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
That is quite a misquote there Carnyx. What the study actually said was that Grammar schools failed to improve the grades of the highest performing students.
OK, thanks. But as they pick the highest performing students anyway, what's the point?
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
A town councillor? Absolutely. Some of them are as thick as brick mince.
From my time chairing our Town Council, I remember one guy who thought another councillor shouldn’t be allowed to vote on any environmental issues because she was a member of the Green Party and therefore it was a conflict of interest.
Or another guy who voted against an installation of some stained glass swifts on a public building by the town’s Arts Society because “I went to Rio de Janeiro once and it was full of graffiti and I didn’t like it”.
I find the first encouraging in that they even thought about conflicts of interest, albeit stupidly and incorrectly.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
People make allegations all the time though and the Police don’t follow each and every one up.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
People make allegations all the time though and the Police don’t follow each and every one up.
Even my sister, who does not share my love of cricket, took her family to a game at Old Trafford, albeit not realising until some way into the match that she wasn't actually watching Lancashire.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
And bringing in another theme of this thread every crime reported has to be investigated.
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
People make allegations all the time though and the Police don’t follow each and every one up.
This, along with the whole life tariffs announcement, smacks of desperation. They’ve had 13 years. The mess we are in is under their watch. She, and her predecessors, could have done something about it.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
I've just put all my prices up. And I'm still turning down work.
Had to cut them savagely last year due to lack of demand.
Interestingly, however, the majority of them seem to be being privately educated anyway.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
I hadn't realised that French schools were so bad. I have never looked at it but had just assumed that it was probably better than the UK system if only becuase much of their other public services, especially health care, is so much better.
I am strangely disappointed to find that isn't the case.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
The article is based on research showing that they do not improve, and may indeed worsen academic performance.
Academic performance is only one aspect though, selective schools may well worsen social and economic equality for example.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
That is quite a misquote there Carnyx. What the study actually said was that Grammar schools failed to improve the grades of the highest performing students.
Which is probably true, although it depends on how you define 'highest performing students.' In my experience (and I have taught in them) they make it much easier for the next level down to concentrate and work which certainly lifts their grades.
The real problem is that they take only a very small group, much too young. If selection were at 14 (as Leicester tried in the 1950s) it would make a lot more sense.
It might also kick some of the stupid snobbery about practical subjects into touch.
A number of Grammar schools do have a system for later entry for later developing students. Both at 13 and at Sixth Form.
But I agree that we select too ealy. In fact we do pretty much everything too early in our education system including starting and finishing school life.
Trying to work out who "the controversial winner of WH2020" was. From reading the header semantically, it looks like Mike is saying Trump actually won the election...
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
We don’t want to take police away from the really important work though.
I know some councillors are thick as mince but could a mainstream politician really not have heard of Britain First?
as it behind a paywall its hard to get why he was arrested. I know free speech is being radically reduced in Britain today (including being allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic!) but how come he is arrested for sharing a video criticising this ?
Praying outside abortion clinics is not the problem. Harassing women outside abortion clinics is the problem. Go read Matthew 6:5-6.
The subject of the video who was doing the protesting outside the abortion clinic was subsequently awarded danages for wrongful arrest.
Going back to my question , I cannot see (if this is the case) why the police would arrest/be interested in somebody retweeting something from Britain First ? They are a registered political party , you are allowed to vote for them and express support for them therefore.
The man arrested also has a total of 76 followers on Twitter.
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
It is a police matter because someone made allegations of a hate crime to the police.
People make allegations all the time though and the Police don’t follow each and every one up.
This, along with the whole life tariffs announcement, smacks of desperation. They’ve had 13 years. The mess we are in is under their watch. She, and her predecessors, could have done something about it.
They deserve to lose the next election.
Yep.
Flogging the dead horse harder than you are already flogging it is not a good improvement.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
I hadn't realised that French schools were so bad. I have never looked at it but had just assumed that it was probably better than the UK system if only becuase much of their other public services, especially health care, is so much better.
I am strangely disappointed to find that isn't the case.
The French system is essentially predicated on the idea that graduates go into teaching for five years, turn up, read from notes for forty minutes then sod off. No safeguarding, pedagogy, training or any of that rubbish.
Strangely, the French citizens who want to teach properly often end up in England, and not always teaching French either. I've never worked in a school that didn't have a French member of staff, and they were united in their condemnation of what they left behind.
Not that they were always enthused by what they found here. One science teacher applied to mark French orals, only to have a mighty bust-up with her chief examiner who insisted she not mark people down for pronouncing esses and tees on the end of words (despite the fact this was wrong) because the chief examiner thought it was right.
It is interesting to note the proportion of privately educated children in France is about the same as here, despite their strong tradition of using state services.
One of the things that should have set alarm bells clanging over Blair's education policy was that, in Rawnsley's words, 'he wanted to make the British system like the French system, where the state option was so good few children were privately educated.' That was absolutely bollocks on every level and suggested he didn't know what he was talking about.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
This appears to be a favoured tactic of the current Government. Decree something will happen, but don’t provide any resource so it actually can happen.
And then blame everyone else - especially the woke liberal elite - for their failure. The police and justice system issues are mind-boggling. They are supposed to be a law and order party, then collapse policing so that some whole towns found themselves with a handful of officers to cover quiet periods like a Friday night. And gutting the funding for the courts so that whatever criminals whats left of the police managed to nick don't get prosecuted for a long time.
We seem to spend an awful lot of money to get threadbare and barely functional services. Where does all the money go...?
Middlemen, house price inflation and social care.
Sometimes, all at the same time.
(Bigger picture is decades of too much borrowing for immediate consumption and not enough saving or investment. Those decisions are pretty much bound to bite us on the bum at some point, and that point looks like it's about now. And there's little point complaining to current politicians, because the relevant decisions were taken by us/our parents/our grandparents long ago.)
It also relates to the gold plating of governmental actions. Which results in either “we can do this” or “nothing can be done”
Some years ago, the council removed a small playground from a piece of ground shut round the corner from where I lived. It was relocated from our ward to one where the locals had voted for the ruling group on the council.
No money to keep it up, apparently. Then a neighbour mentioned that she was an ex-Economist journalist and asked for interviews.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
The end state of the education system is that the paper work for a school will cost £100 Billion per school. Leaving no actual money for.. a school.
But the building for the people supervising the paperwork will be top notch.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
Though I think the evidence is that, if you have a grammar school system (taking the top quarter/half), the remaining schools are really hard to run well and there is a meaningful reduction in the outcomes for children who go to them.
Somewhat different in areas where there are a handful of grammar schools taking the top one percent with near-comprehensives for everyone else.
But ultimately, the 11+ process ought to go because it's a bit of crud economy; a fair amount of expense and hassle that doesn't really benefit anyone.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
We had a similar issue in Gloucester. For boys, Tommy Rich's was and is a fantastic school. But for many years when I was growing up Crypt's results were comparable to those of an average comp.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
I suppose because many schools do not stream by subject and don't have yearly changes. My old comprehensive school which I keep a weather eye on for sentimental reasons and where I have friends who both teach and have children at the school was one of those that decided that they would ony stream by English and Maths. All other subjects are relegated to also rans. That does seem to be the norm in many schools.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
It's been a reasonably worthwhile discussion based on facts though. Heck, even @Richard_Tyndall and I have found common ground on education, which does not happen too often.
With The Poster in Question, I think we would be running down more rabbit holes than a ferret pack.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
It is hard to get very excited either way. If they don't make a difference, why have them? But equally, if they don't make a difference, why not leave them be?
Fair question, but the issue is the cost and hassle of the division, and the effect on those who are defined as second rate at an early age.
Is that effect real though? If grammars don't help then is the corollary that non-grammars do no harm? We need to be wary of recycling arguments against 1950s secondary moderns.
If only because it will trigger A Certain Poster.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
As you can see, even without HYUFD this has already degenerated into yet another grammar schools thread. Partly my fault I suppose.
Though it does seem to be a more informative rather than confrontational thread than ususal.
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
To offer private school systems for free.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
Comprehensives were pretty good on the whole when they were funded properly and streamed by subject. When Governments (both Conservative and Labour) wanted them to work. From 1973 to 1976 I went to a brilliant omprehensive (a former Secondary Modern, no less). Streamed subjects, enthusiastic teachers and rugby, football, cricket, cross-country, arts and music going on every lunchtime or after school. Students went on to be highly successful and from very semi-detached suburban beginnings
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
With streaming by subject, with yearly changes, what is the point of a grammar school being separate?
I suppose because many schools do not stream by subject and don't have yearly changes. My old comprehensive school which I keep a weather eye on for sentimental reasons and where I have friends who both teach and have children at the school was one of those that decided that they would ony stream by English and Maths. All other subjects are relegated to also rans. That does seem to be the norm in many schools.
And, actually, I agree (again - this is slightly disturbing) that this is not a great idea from an educational perspective.
However - as @Fysics_Teacher pointed out to us a few weeks back, one key problem is the timetabling. Setting each subject makes it much harder.
So they prioritise English and above all maths (where teaching mixed ability is both difficult and damaging) because they are the subjects the government rate double for league tables.
Comments
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1695496611118338420/photo/1
While it's true that Trump would likely be his easiest opponent to beat, Mike's apparent certainty that's the "only way" Biden can defend the presidency seems overblown to me.
If Trump's criminal cases deny him the nomination - and FWIW I think they will - much then rests on who then gets picked.
The front runners are likely to be almost as unpalatable to swing voters on the wedge issues - and are not going to encourage a Democratic base unenthusiastic about Biden to stay at home.
Lab lead = 15 points (was 17 points in previous BMG poll in late July).
Unable to see individual party shares as behind paywall.
The growth in the money going to the middlemen is quite astonishing, and gets very little notice compared to "pharma profits".
BIG INSURANCE 2022: Revenues reached $1.25 trillion thanks to sucking billions out of the pharmacy supply chain – and taxpayers' pockets
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/big-insurance-2022-revenues-reached
For GOP voters that just proves that the hated librul woke elite is out to get them. So they will Bobby Sands him all the way.
If the GOP grows a brain and declares the criminal and his cabal to be ineligible, won't the selectorate do all they can to select the "Trump was Framed' candidate? And then face GOP voters doing Trump as a write-in?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66636347
Good. It's not as if the police have anything else to do except read X for hate speech so why not bolster the Home Secretary's chance of replacing Rishi Sunak?
Where Suella Braverman might have a point is where the victim has done the work for them and isolated the relevant 10 seconds of doorcam footage but it is simply impractical for police to collect cctv footage from up and down the street and spend weeks reviewing it. Police simply do not have the resources to investigate every crime as if it is a murder. Who even will visit every victim?
What the government needs is for the MoJ to reduce court delays because if naughty boys are simply bailed for a year, there can be no deterrence. They, and as importantly, their friends will see there are no adverse consequences for low-level and increasingly high-level crime, at least in the short term and in the long run we are all dead.
It's hard to put numbers in it, but there are Trump cultists, Trump haters, and those who might like what he peddles, but would be fine with someone else delivering it if they have a better chance of being elected.
If Trump isn't the candidate, the the GOP needs someone extreme enough to get the cultists to turn out, yet moderate enough not to completely alienate the centre.
I'm not convinced that's possible.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bright-pupils-get-better-gcses-at-comprehensive-schools-jvqnw2g6x?shareToken=eb3653ab1debdeb63c658b81c7337dd8
“Do you support the reception of thousands of irregular migrants from the Middle East and Africa by the forced relocation scheme imposed by the EU bureaucrats”
Top brass may want rid of Trump, their voters do not. Whilst I cannot conceive how Trump would win (as he needs either a Biden collapse or millions to vote for him who didn't last time), I can't see how the party gets a better result with another candidate.
And lets be honest. Mining the shitkicker vote does the GOP well. If a load of angry and stupid people are whipped up to fear the librul wome elite machine which is stealing the election, then they're likely to stay in your camp and keep giving you donations.
A recent paper studying prison populations seems to demonstrate that the level of viral exposure does determine to some extent whether or not an individual gets infected with Covid.
Evidence of 'leaky' protection following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection in an incarcerated population
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40750-8
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/27/tory-councillor-arrested-racial-hate-crime-anthony-stevens/
Their problem is analogous to that of the Tories with Brexit.
They've gone all in on one thing, and it's alienated the majority of the electorate - but there's no easy way too step away from it without alienating those who still believe.
I don't think it can win the general election..
I don’t find it inconceivable a local politician like this hasnt heard of them.
If it was an MP that would be different.
I think the problem for Trump is not that he's a crook, but that he tried to upset their beloved Constitution.
Americans will never forgive that.
From my time chairing our Town Council, I remember one guy who thought another councillor shouldn’t be allowed to vote on any environmental issues because she was a member of the Green Party and therefore it was a conflict of interest.
Or another guy who voted against an installation of some stained glass swifts on a public building by the town’s Arts Society because “I went to Rio de Janeiro once and it was full of graffiti and I didn’t like it”.
Mr. Bondegezou, while I agree this is a case of having a headline not a real policy, this is far from the first time we've had governmeny by headline.
We seem to spend an awful lot of money to get threadbare and barely functional services. Where does all the money go...?
'The Mayoress thought she needed to have a word with George's father about this. George's father was over ninety, but he had a lot more sense than George.'
Sometimes, all at the same time.
(Bigger picture is decades of too much borrowing for immediate consumption and not enough saving or investment. Those decisions are pretty much bound to bite us on the bum at some point, and that point looks like it's about now. And there's little point complaining to current politicians, because the relevant decisions were taken by us/our parents/our grandparents long ago.)
https://www.oxfordshireindependent.com/p/some-oxfordshire-children-with-special-needs
(To be fair to Oxfordshire County Council, its current administration absolutely recognises the problem and is trying to fix it. The previous administration didn’t.)
Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union, said: “Northamptonshire police have made a serious mistake in this case. Defending free speech isn’t a crime and Cllr Stevens should never have been arrested, let alone held in custody for nine hours. This episode highlights the need for the police to receive proper free speech training.”
A Northamptonshire Police spokesman said: “On Aug 2, Northamptonshire Police received a report of a hate crime regarding posts made on social media.
“In response, a 50-year-old man was arrested on the morning of Aug 7 on suspicion of distributing written material to stir up racial hatred. He has been released on bail pending further enquiries.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/27/tory-councillor-arrested-racial-hate-crime-anthony-stevens/
I just cannot see why this is a police matter.
https://archive.ph/Lq6MU
IMO It's fairly bizarre behaviour by the Northants police.
Some years ago, the council removed a small playground from a piece of ground shut round the corner from where I lived. It was relocated from our ward to one where the locals had voted for the ruling group on the council.
No money to keep it up, apparently. Then a neighbour mentioned that she was an ex-Economist journalist and asked for interviews.
£30,000 was discovered in spare council funds, overnight, and a brand new playground installed.
The area of this playground was about 10 meters by 10 meters, with half a dozen play items. Most of them quite simple - a seesaw etc..,
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/28/english-regions-dominated-by-grammar-schools-do-not-improve-grades-study-says
"The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance"
I'm stdruck however by how the Grammar School Heads Association says that that's great, the lack of any difference in academic outcomes means it's not fair to criticise grammar schools. What I can't get my head around is, what's the point of the bloody things been for decades in that case?!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/28/study-casts-doubt-on-neanderthal-flower-burial-theory
https://fiscalnote.com/blog/how-old-118th-congress
Quite frankly they don’t have the resource and this specific case seems a waste of time and effort.
Which they're very good at.
But, truthfully, the issue isn't grammars vs comps. If comps were noticeably better, we'd have seen it by now. The issue is French class sizes with Scandinavian approaches.
It is high time and long overdue that even the drink-sodden retards of the multiple education departments in the UK faced the fact we can have one or the other, but if we want a good education system, we can't have both.
For myself, I want Scandinavian processes and Scandinavian class sizes, because the French system is pretty poor at just about everything. But it does have the advantage of being quite cheap, so in a forced choice I suspect politicians would go for the latter.
Given the trashing of teacher pay and pensions it's where we're headed anyway, as @dixiedean has pointed out before.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4519632#Comment_4519632
Another reason many of the nervous will stick with Trump - they worry he really will run anyway, and even if doesn't they don't think the others will do better.
The real problem is that they take only a very small group, much too young. If selection were at 14 (as Leicester tried in the 1950s) it would make a lot more sense.
It might also kick some of the stupid snobbery about practical subjects into touch.
Ah: just seen Ydoethur's comment.
But then, they used to be run by Susan Acland-Hood. It's no surprise they're a disaster zone.
Edit - this is quite funny:
Even my sister, who does not share my love of cricket, took her family to a game at Old Trafford, albeit not realising until some way into the match that she wasn't actually watching Lancashire.
They deserve to lose the next election.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
Had to cut them savagely last year due to lack of demand.
Interestingly, however, the majority of them seem to be being privately educated anyway.
I am strangely disappointed to find that isn't the case.
Academic performance is only one aspect though, selective schools may well worsen social and economic equality for example.
This is the link to the research article:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2023.2240977
But I agree that we select too ealy. In fact we do pretty much everything too early in our education system including starting and finishing school life.
Flogging the dead horse harder than you are already flogging it is not a good improvement.
Strangely, the French citizens who want to teach properly often end up in England, and not always teaching French either. I've never worked in a school that didn't have a French member of staff, and they were united in their condemnation of what they left behind.
Not that they were always enthused by what they found here. One science teacher applied to mark French orals, only to have a mighty bust-up with her chief examiner who insisted she not mark people down for pronouncing esses and tees on the end of words (despite the fact this was wrong) because the chief examiner thought it was right.
It is interesting to note the proportion of privately educated children in France is about the same as here, despite their strong tradition of using state services.
One of the things that should have set alarm bells clanging over Blair's education policy was that, in Rawnsley's words, 'he wanted to make the British system like the French system, where the state option was so good few children were privately educated.' That was absolutely bollocks on every level and suggested he didn't know what he was talking about.
(although he doesn't seem to be around right now.)
Some years ago, the council removed a small playground from a piece of ground shut round the corner from where I lived. It was relocated from our ward to one where the locals had voted for the ruling group on the council.
No money to keep it up, apparently. Then a neighbour mentioned that she was an ex-Economist journalist and asked for interviews.
£30,000 was discovered in spare council funds, The end state of the education system is that the paper work for a school will cost £100 Billion per school. Leaving no actual money for.. a school.
But the building for the people supervising the paperwork will be top notch.
Somewhat different in areas where there are a handful of grammar schools taking the top one percent with near-comprehensives for everyone else.
But ultimately, the 11+ process ought to go because it's a bit of crud economy; a fair amount of expense and hassle that doesn't really benefit anyone.
In 1976 I went to a Grammar, underfunded and poorly supported by staff. Everyone (except me) had passed the 11 plus. Students were streamed for O levels into an A and B stream. The B stream were for what the teachers believed to be the thick kids. Because they might fail specific subjects they were entered for CSE and not I levels. Only the O level results were posted in the local paper, and the pass rate was good. The CSE results were not published. In 1978 I came fifteenth in a year of just under 60 with 7 Bs and C's, an E in Chemistry and a U in French. So 45 students didn't realise 7 O' levels. In my book that is poor. Whatever the answer, that isn't it.
A friend of mine was offered a place at Crypt after passing the 11+, but his parents turned it down. It was Tommy's or the local comp.
With The Poster in Question, I think we would be running down more rabbit holes than a ferret pack.
However - as @Fysics_Teacher pointed out to us a few weeks back, one key problem is the timetabling. Setting each subject makes it much harder.
So they prioritise English and above all maths (where teaching mixed ability is both difficult and damaging) because they are the subjects the government rate double for league tables.