Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
Your last sentence!
This is deflection from the two main issues
1) sweetheart deals between schools and authorised suppliers
2) punishing the child for a decision by their parents
As I understand it, school uniforms are a way of preventing an escalation of expensive fashion competition between kids at the expense of poorer parents. The "authorised supplier" scam is the opposite of this.
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022
I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come
I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.
Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.
There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
I understand that but I just do not see a cashless society anytime soon
I work in banking, I know the authors of that report, I've seen the trends, I've seen the future.
Fantastic, I knew bankers were privileged but hadn't realised they are allowed to see the future too. So what are the results of the GE and Presidential election?
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
And the child in the slightly lighter garment is going to be categorised, in some groups anyway, as “poor”.
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022
I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come
I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.
Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.
There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
I understand that but I just do not see a cashless society anytime soon
I work in banking, I know the authors of that report, I've seen the trends, I've seen the future.
Fantastic, I knew bankers were privileged but hadn't realised they are allowed to see the future too. So what are the results of the GE and Presidential election?
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022
I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come
I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.
Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.
There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
I understand that but I just do not see a cashless society anytime soon
I work in banking, I know the authors of that report, I've seen the trends, I've seen the future.
Fantastic, I knew bankers were privileged but hadn't realised they are allowed to see the future too. So what are the results of the GE and Presidential election?
Men will win both elections.
Phew, I was really worried an orange toddler might be involved.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
Your last sentence!
This is deflection from the two main issues
1) sweetheart deals between schools and authorised suppliers
2) punishing the child for a decision by their parents
As I understand it, school uniforms are a way of preventing an escalation of expensive fashion competition between kids at the expense of poorer parents. The "authorised supplier" scam is the opposite of this.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
Your last sentence!
This is deflection from the two main issues
1) sweetheart deals between schools and authorised suppliers
2) punishing the child for a decision by their parents
As I understand it, school uniforms are a way of preventing an escalation of expensive fashion competition between kids at the expense of poorer parents. The "authorised supplier" scam is the opposite of this.
And that's the issue. Round here all the secondary schools have moved to a tartan skirt for girls - which opens up a different issue that most of the Boys uniform can be bought from Asda while the girls uniform requires a £30 skirt...
As for the photo on the top of this thread - I actually can't see the difference both skirts look dark grey to me.
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
Yesterday I saw some children playing on those rides where you pretend to be driving a car or flying a helicopter or whatever. A one Euro coin in the slot - cash only.
BTW I am in the south of Spain this week. Forecast to reach 31degC today. Back to the British autumn on Sunday, alas.
The school appears to be ignoring statutory guidance (which is basically as close to law as it is possible to get without being law). The guidance says that "Parents should be able to purchase generic items of uniform from a range of retailers giving them choice and value for money." Holderness insist that skirts must be purchased from their official supplier despite the fact it is clearly a generic item. Interestingly, there is no such requirement for trousers. So they are in breach of statutory guidance and possibly also of the Equality Act.
It's run by a wanky trust, so I expect a level of stupidity by default. And this is some stupid.
If they're discriminating against girls, that's idiotic. They're also discriminating against poorer families who can't afford to shop at Kickback Clothing. I imagine this is a local comp which has been effectively privatised, so parents may not have much of a choice in being able to send their kids to a school not run by stards.
Parents would have no more choice if it was run by the council. In my experience, schools run by academies are marginally more responsive to parents' wishes than schools run by the council.
Skirtgate. If it's just one girl then someone can send her the money to buy the right sodding skirt rather than spend the rest of the morning arguing about the definition of grey.
Skirtgate. If it's just one girl then someone can send her the money to buy the right sodding skirt rather than spend the rest of the morning arguing about the definition of grey.
The school specifies black skirts from a particular supplier. It also specifies black trousers but does not specify the supplier. By insisting on a particular supplier, the school is in breach of statutory guidance which is clear that parents should be able to purchase generic items such as this from a range of suppliers.
The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.
And an increase of 266,000 since 2019 and 402,000 since 2010.
Have any Conservative MPs noticed this ?
So (assuming these numbers are correct) under the Coalition/Tories NHS employment hs gone up by more than 25%.
A serious question which is not meant to have a political slant... what are all these additional jobs?
We know they are not recruiting enough nurses, doctors or other front line staff in specific areas. So how is it the size of the NHS has increased by 25%?
As I say, this is not intended as a leading question but a genuine enquiry.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
Your last sentence!
This is deflection from the two main issues
1) sweetheart deals between schools and authorised suppliers
2) punishing the child for a decision by their parents
As I understand it, school uniforms are a way of preventing an escalation of expensive fashion competition between kids at the expense of poorer parents. The "authorised supplier" scam is the opposite of this.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
They will have a learnt valuable lessons about the power of branding, advertising and how to ignore petty bureaucracy, sounds like good schooling to me.
At school, I always insisted on pushing the limits of what was acceptable in terms of uniform. Don't know why - I wasn't particularly rebellious in any other way. I had a series of weary and half-hearted reprimands from the deputy headmaster, who really didn't want to be going through the process of telling off an otherwise well-behaved child for something he didn't really care about, which I dealt with very politely and affably, assuring him I'd get something different, and then not doing so. I don't know why. Obscurely, I felt it was important to find at least some rules to break on principle, especially if it could be done in a way which caused nobody any inconvenience.
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.
And an increase of 266,000 since 2019 and 402,000 since 2010.
Have any Conservative MPs noticed this ?
So (assuming these numbers are correct) under the Coalition/Tories NHS employment hs gone up by more than 25%.
A serious question which is not meant to have a political slant... what are all these additional jobs?
We know they are not recruiting enough nurses, doctors or other front line staff in specific areas. So how is it the size of the NHS has increased by 25%?
As I say, this is not intended as a leading question but a genuine enquiry.
Obvious factors might be (depending on the defintions)
(a) increase in part-timing (notably in nursing) (b) ditto in agency and contractor work (no idea if counted in) (c) staff turnover in the yeart in question being v. high so both the leaver and incomer are counted
Those two factors also raise the possibility that some people are being counted twice over (e.g. someone who is an established part time nurse but also does some agency work).
The TLDR is that men can't or shouldn't be expected to change so women just have to avoid all those careers where this happens. Back to home and hearth, girls!
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
6.4 billion pounds was used in cash in 2022
I rarely use it and it's use will diminish but I expect it will be still in use for many years to come
I simply do not see why it causes such controversy
Not really, as I've pointed out the cost of handling cash for businesses is prohibitive compared to using cards, bank transfers etc that cash will become obsolete.
Another factor is that irrecoverable fraud involving cash is higher than compared to cards.
There's a reason more and more shops that use cash put up signs saying 'No £50 or Scottish notes.'
I understand that but I just do not see a cashless society anytime soon
I work in banking, I know the authors of that report, I've seen the trends, I've seen the future.
Conversely, I passed a fast food shop in Wigan last week which had a handwritten sign in the window saying 'we accept card payments' - from which I inferred that such things were still a relative novelty, in Wigan fast food circles at least.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
They will have a learnt valuable lessons about the power of branding, advertising and how to ignore petty bureaucracy, sounds like good schooling to me.
At school, I always insisted on pushing the limits of what was acceptable in terms of uniform. Don't know why - I wasn't particularly rebellious in any other way. I had a series of weary and half-hearted reprimands from the deputy headmaster, who really didn't want to be going through the process of telling off an otherwise well-behaved child for something he didn't really care about, which I dealt with very politely and affably, assuring him I'd get something different, and then not doing so. I don't know why. Obscurely, I felt it was important to find at least some rules to break on principle, especially if it could be done in a way which caused nobody any inconvenience.
Hmm, don't you think, from your perspectvie as an adult, you caused the poor deputy significant inconvenience?
(I also wince at some of my own teenage behaviour ...)
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
The only reason we have death by careless and dangerous driving is because juries refused to convict drivers of manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Yes.
Schools have a uniform selection of colours they can select between that are stocked by supermarkets (and required by statutory guidance mentioned above). Hence why all the kids going to primary schools in blue or red t shirts have the same shade of blue or red.
If the school has chosen an improper colour that's the schools fault, not the parents. Like a school insisting their uniform t shirt isn't red, it's magenta.
I know you are a master at arguing that black is white. Try now to argue that black is grey.
Doesn't matter whether it's black or grey, the policy should be based on what's available. The school has humiliated and shamed a teenager, for a decision made by their parents. And.its not the only outrageous part, if you search for news about the school and their uniform: the school has committed criminal damage against clothing (cutting off bits thiley don't like), isolated girls for not wearing tights despite health issues. The chair of goveyand.the head should be ashamed of themselves.
The Sun brings us real political news. Matt Hancock remains an MP.
I feel like Nad has given him a bit of cover on this, but it's pretty disgraceful that he carries on drawing his MP salary (and expenses?) while doing all this crap. I'm queasy about an outright ban on MPs doing other work, but Hancock and Dorries both make persuasive arguments for it.
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
Competition between academies/free schools for customers, aimed at the parents, esp. the parents who worried about appearance and good behaviour andf could spend money on uniform. Exclusion of the lumpenproletariat.
Happened before - grammar schools used to ape Arnoldian "public" schools in the late C19/early C20. BA and MA gowns for the masters, prefect's and sports colour ties, etc. etc.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
They will have a learnt valuable lessons about the power of branding, advertising and how to ignore petty bureaucracy, sounds like good schooling to me.
At school, I always insisted on pushing the limits of what was acceptable in terms of uniform. Don't know why - I wasn't particularly rebellious in any other way. I had a series of weary and half-hearted reprimands from the deputy headmaster, who really didn't want to be going through the process of telling off an otherwise well-behaved child for something he didn't really care about, which I dealt with very politely and affably, assuring him I'd get something different, and then not doing so. I don't know why. Obscurely, I felt it was important to find at least some rules to break on principle, especially if it could be done in a way which caused nobody any inconvenience.
Hmm, don't you think, from your perspectvie as an adult, you caused the poor deputy significant inconvenience?
(I also wince at some of my own teenage behaviour ...)
Well, yes, a bit. I'm not massively proud of it. I think I thought that as a child, too. I quite liked the fella, and didn't want to make his life difficult. I made sure to be very nice about it. I didn't want a big confrontation with authority; I just thought the rules needed a bit of mild breaking.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Yes.
Schools have a uniform selection of colours they can select between that are stocked by supermarkets (and required by statutory guidance mentioned above). Hence why all the kids going to primary schools in blue or red t shirts have the same shade of blue or red.
If the school has chosen an improper colour that's the schools fault, not the parents. Like a school insisting their uniform t shirt isn't red, it's magenta.
I know you are a master at arguing that black is white. Try now to argue that black is grey.
It's all shades, yes.
If they've chosen an inappropriate colour that can't be purchased at supermarkets then that's the schools fault. Just as if they chose neon green as the colour. There's a range of acceptable colours for school uniforms that are able to be chosen, choosing a different shade of grey, or a different shade of red, or a colour not otherwise a available, is not acceptable.
"The colors white and black are not usually thought of as shades of gray, but they can be thought of as shades of achromatic gray, as both contain equal amounts of red, blue and green. White is at the extreme upper end of the achromatic value scale and black is at the extreme lower end of the achromatic value scale, with all the colors normally considered tones of achromatic gray colors in between. Since achromatic colors have no hue, the hue code (h code) is left blank for achromatic colors (usually marked as a dash)."
Grey is not black is not blue is not purple. The school uniform is black. The Asda skirt is grey.
Such fearsome logical concepts don't usually escape your understanding.
Key word being usually. As your quote goes on to explain, at length, black is a shade of achromatic grey. That's simply a matter of fact, even if you chose not to highlight that element in bold. Kudos to you for at least having the decency of incorporating the full quote that comprehensively destroys your argument.
Furthermore as far as I'm aware when it comes to fabrics, or most materials in fact, getting a "true black" is nigh on impossible so yes it's all shades of grey.
Moreover it's moot as if the school had chosen a different colour (they haven't) then it'd still be their fault for doing so. The law and morals are that uniform is supposed to be easily affordable. That's the entire point of it.
Skirtgate. If it's just one girl then someone can send her the money to buy the right sodding skirt rather than spend the rest of the morning arguing about the definition of grey.
The school specifies black skirts from a particular supplier. It also specifies black trousers but does not specify the supplier. By insisting on a particular supplier, the school is in breach of statutory guidance which is clear that parents should be able to purchase generic items such as this from a range of suppliers.
And it affects just one girl. It's very bad and very sad. Let's move on.
The TLDR is that men can't or shouldn't be expected to change so women just have to avoid all those careers where this happens. Back to home and hearth, girls!
Maybe the TLDR should be that conflating rape and banter under the same catch-all title benefits no-one, least of all rape victims. Unless this chap in the Times really does intend to defend rape.
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.
And an increase of 266,000 since 2019 and 402,000 since 2010.
Have any Conservative MPs noticed this ?
Another reason why SKS can't promise large funding increases. This Government are already doing it, they are just not telling anyone.
The increase is probably in non-frontline staff. I hesitate to call them bureaucrats. Accountants, HR, IS, management, legals etc. You need more accountants to monitor cost of more HR, IS, managers, legals. You need more IS to support activities of more accountants, HR, managers, legals. Etc etc.
The NHS needs to be simplified. I suspect there are a lot of activities that are unnecessary or duplicated.
Just increasing funding will not tackle the problem. Internal markets exacerbate the problem. Simplify and let front line professionals get on with their job without over interference from the bureaucracy.
The TLDR is that men can't or shouldn't be expected to change so women just have to avoid all those careers where this happens. Back to home and hearth, girls!
The man is an utter arse. Still, it's not entirely unusual for a doctor to be unable to admit they are wrong in the face of plentiful evidence.
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
We already do. It's death by wantonly and furiously cycling which is a law for centuries already so what is the reason for a new law?
Tragic accidents happen and that simply is part of life, if there's been a tragic accident then there's no reason for anyone to be imprisoned. If it's negligence though, then there would be.
If a pedestrian without looking steps onto a road and is hit by a cyclist/driver and dies then that's tragic and the cyclist/driver has to live with that for the rest of their life despite doing perhaps nothing wrong. Prison isn't appropriate there.
If on the other hand a pedestrian is killed by someone illegally driving or cycling on a pavement, then that's a different matter.
Each case needs to be looked at its own merits, but there's no need for new laws as we already have existing ones.
9/11 is the real origin of the tense relationship between Viktor Orbán and the US. Until Trump's invitation in 2019, Orbán was a persona non grata in the White House. The reason: as prime minister, he refused to condemn a Hungarian far-right leader's insult.
After the attacks, antisemitic Hungarian politician István Csurka made the following comments in statement and in writing:
"We deeply sympathise with the innocent victims, the material destruction is shocking, but the responsibility for it must also be borne by the US globalist policy. What is happening in Palestine and Israel, and what is happening all over the world, the unbridled advance of globalism, has certainly had [this attack as] a direct consequence.".. https://twitter.com/panyiszabolcs/status/1701320897414443198
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Yes.
Schools have a uniform selection of colours they can select between that are stocked by supermarkets (and required by statutory guidance mentioned above). Hence why all the kids going to primary schools in blue or red t shirts have the same shade of blue or red.
If the school has chosen an improper colour that's the schools fault, not the parents. Like a school insisting their uniform t shirt isn't red, it's magenta.
I know you are a master at arguing that black is white. Try now to argue that black is grey.
Doesn't matter whether it's black or grey, the policy should be based on what's available. The school has humiliated and shamed a teenager, for a decision made by their parents. And.its not the only outrageous part, if you search for news about the school and their uniform: the school has committed criminal damage against clothing (cutting off bits thiley don't like), isolated girls for not wearing tights despite health issues. The chair of goveyand.the head should be ashamed of themselves.
I think the head should be dismissed for misconduct and bringing the organisation into disrepute. That's normally in an employment contract. And no NDA this time.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
They will have a learnt valuable lessons about the power of branding, advertising and how to ignore petty bureaucracy, sounds like good schooling to me.
At school, I always insisted on pushing the limits of what was acceptable in terms of uniform. Don't know why - I wasn't particularly rebellious in any other way. I had a series of weary and half-hearted reprimands from the deputy headmaster, who really didn't want to be going through the process of telling off an otherwise well-behaved child for something he didn't really care about, which I dealt with very politely and affably, assuring him I'd get something different, and then not doing so. I don't know why. Obscurely, I felt it was important to find at least some rules to break on principle, especially if it could be done in a way which caused nobody any inconvenience.
Hmm, don't you think, from your perspectvie as an adult, you caused the poor deputy significant inconvenience?
(I also wince at some of my own teenage behaviour ...)
Isn’t a part of being young pushing boundaries - uniform is a boundary that isn’t the end of the world from a life choice perspective but it’s normal for children to want to do it and individualise.
I went through a phase of wearing black or grey jeans instead of flannel trousers or a suit, sometimes a pyjama top with tie instead of a formal shirt and tie, doc Martin boots instead of formal shoes. It was a mild exploration of boundaries and thinking I was expressing my individuality - some dons would send you back to change into correct clothing others didn’t give a monkeys so you considered what you could get away with and when.
Then I went through the counter-revolution where I decided I wanted to be dressed very smartly for lessons , tailored suits, linen suits in the summer. None of it had any bearing on what I learned but funnily enough when I suddenly started being overly smart the staff had a completely different perspective of me to my benefit.
Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.
In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.
The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.
In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”
He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.
His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.
“The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”
Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.
“They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”
Excellent - so following America, we expand asset seizure because convicting people of crimes involves that tricky evidence stuff.
For once we should get ahead of the curve. In America, cops have been found to be seizing stuff they want, and buying it for personal use for pennies at “auctions”.
Why not open this up to the general public - a website where you can specify in advance what you want seized? Steal to order…
Oh, and for a fun topic crossover - in America, a ridiculous percentage of seizures are moderate amounts of cash. From black men.
Wait until it leads to an increase of people being debanked.
For the crime of wearing loud shoes in a built up area.
The school appears to be ignoring statutory guidance (which is basically as close to law as it is possible to get without being law). The guidance says that "Parents should be able to purchase generic items of uniform from a range of retailers giving them choice and value for money." Holderness insist that skirts must be purchased from their official supplier despite the fact it is clearly a generic item. Interestingly, there is no such requirement for trousers. So they are in breach of statutory guidance and possibly also of the Equality Act.
It's run by a wanky trust, so I expect a level of stupidity by default. And this is some stupid.
If they're discriminating against girls, that's idiotic. They're also discriminating against poorer families who can't afford to shop at Kickback Clothing. I imagine this is a local comp which has been effectively privatised, so parents may not have much of a choice in being able to send their kids to a school not run by stards.
Came across, the other day, when looking for comething else, a village school in Somerset that had insisted that children wear proper shoes not black trainers.
Unsurprisingly, the DM readers fetishise the uniform.
The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.
And an increase of 266,000 since 2019 and 402,000 since 2010.
Have any Conservative MPs noticed this ?
Another reason why SKS can't promise large funding increases. This Government are already doing it, they are just not telling anyone.
The increase is probably in non-frontline staff. I hesitate to call them bureaucrats. Accountants, HR, IS, management, legals etc. You need more accountants to monitor cost of more HR, IS, managers, legals. You need more IS to support activities of more accountants, HR, managers, legals. Etc etc.
The NHS needs to be simplified. I suspect there are a lot of activities that are unnecessary or duplicated.
Just increasing funding will not tackle the problem. Internal markets exacerbate the problem. Simplify and let front line professionals get on with their job without over interference from the bureaucracy.
9/11 is the real origin of the tense relationship between Viktor Orbán and the US. Until Trump's invitation in 2019, Orbán was a persona non grata in the White House. The reason: as prime minister, he refused to condemn a Hungarian far-right leader's insult.
After the attacks, antisemitic Hungarian politician István Csurka made the following comments in statement and in writing:
"We deeply sympathise with the innocent victims, the material destruction is shocking, but the responsibility for it must also be borne by the US globalist policy. What is happening in Palestine and Israel, and what is happening all over the world, the unbridled advance of globalism, has certainly had [this attack as] a direct consequence.".. https://twitter.com/panyiszabolcs/status/1701320897414443198
Territory illegally occupied by Israel = 7,200 sq. km. Territory illegally occupied by Russia = 157,500 sq. km.
Mr. Cookie, what's Labour's policy on transport spending, regarding the North? I don't disagree with Burnham's criticism, but I'd be surprised if Labour would do much differently.
Number of long-term sick hits record high of 2.6 million The level of illness among the population is costing lives and harming the economy, a new report has warned. An additional 491,433 people were off work due to their health in the three months to July, according to official figures. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/number-of-long-term-sick-hits-record-high-of-2-6-million-12959783
Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.
In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.
The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.
In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”
He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.
His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.
“The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”
Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.
“They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”
One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter/provider of routes to freedom.
The use of ‘terrorist’ as a catch all term for the bogeyman de jour is pretty wanky at the best of times.
There was a report yesterday that the migrants are forming their own groups and acquiring the boats avoiding any use of people smugglers and the huge costs
It is without doubt that many of them are resourceful and it does make sense to DIY their crossings, though it is as dangerous as ever
That makes it even better.
The migrants are then smuggling themselves. So they are guilty. Even better, they carry their cash on them. Which means it can be seized. We are talking about all the family savings.
So we can detain them indefinitely and seize their money.
Trebles all round.
Can I get the contract to use their labour while in custody as terrorists? I have some cotton fields that need pickin'
Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.
In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.
The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.
In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”
He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.
His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.
“The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”
Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.
“They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”
The TLDR is that men can't or shouldn't be expected to change so women just have to avoid all those careers where this happens. Back to home and hearth, girls!
Maybe the TLDR should be that conflating rape and banter under the same catch-all title benefits no-one, least of all rape victims. Unless this chap in the Times really does intend to defend rape.
He carefully avoids noting what the report actually said. There were reports of rape. There were reports of surgeons grinding themselves with their erection against female colleagues. That is sexual assault. It is not banter. It is not professional.
Women have a right not to be sexually harassed, either physically or verbally. It is not good enough for us not to be raped but have to put up with everything short of that.
And that is precisely what he is saying: that they have to deal with it. Not that skilled, highly trained professional men should learn to behave in a decent professional manner in the workplace.
The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.
And an increase of 266,000 since 2019 and 402,000 since 2010.
Have any Conservative MPs noticed this ?
Another reason why SKS can't promise large funding increases. This Government are already doing it, they are just not telling anyone.
The increase is probably in non-frontline staff. I hesitate to call them bureaucrats. Accountants, HR, IS, management, legals etc. You need more accountants to monitor cost of more HR, IS, managers, legals. You need more IS to support activities of more accountants, HR, managers, legals. Etc etc.
The NHS needs to be simplified. I suspect there are a lot of activities that are unnecessary or duplicated.
Just increasing funding will not tackle the problem. Internal markets exacerbate the problem. Simplify and let front line professionals get on with their job without over interference from the bureaucracy.
Absolutely, but no Government will ever do that
The problem is actually the wrong kind "non-frontline" staff. There is a lack of non-frontline staff of the right kind.
Medical staff are often doing huge amounts of paperwork. Often of the most bullshit kind.
Testing is considered non-frontline. But testing is a blocker to lots of stuff. We could speed up testing for many, many things. But it isn't politically sexy like "more nurses"
Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.
In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.
The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.
In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”
He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.
His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.
“The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”
Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.
“They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”
The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.
And an increase of 266,000 since 2019 and 402,000 since 2010.
Have any Conservative MPs noticed this ?
Another reason why SKS can't promise large funding increases. This Government are already doing it, they are just not telling anyone.
The increase is probably in non-frontline staff. I hesitate to call them bureaucrats. Accountants, HR, IS, management, legals etc. You need more accountants to monitor cost of more HR, IS, managers, legals. You need more IS to support activities of more accountants, HR, managers, legals. Etc etc.
The NHS needs to be simplified. I suspect there are a lot of activities that are unnecessary or duplicated.
Just increasing funding will not tackle the problem. Internal markets exacerbate the problem. Simplify and let front line professionals get on with their job without over interference from the bureaucracy.
Absolutely, but no Government will ever do that
The problem is actually the wrong kind "non-frontline" staff. There is a lack of non-frontline staff of the right kind.
Medical staff are often doing huge amounts of paperwork. Often of the most bullshit kind.
Testing is considered non-frontline. But testing is a blocker to lots of stuff. We could speed up testing for many, many things. But it isn't politically sexy like "more nurses"
Time to introduce mandatory uniforms for testers? Just need to work whether they will have to pay with cash or card and then this policy can be finalised.
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
Yesterday I saw some children playing on those rides where you pretend to be driving a car or flying a helicopter or whatever. A one Euro coin in the slot - cash only.
BTW I am in the south of Spain this week. Forecast to reach 31degC today. Back to the British autumn on Sunday, alas.
Forecast for London on Sunday is not too bad
It's a different world. I'll be flying in to Manchester.
We now have the published results of six polling companies for last week.
I am taking an average of Savanta, Deltapoll, Techne, YouGov, Omnisis and Redfield & Wilton who poll each week. This helps provide a degree of comparability to enable any trends to be identified.
Omnisis polling is now provided under the name We Think, but I am not aware that there is any change in methodology so I am using this polling data.
There was a 4 week gap over August, but we have now two weeks of polling for each of the six companies.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.
In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.
The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.
In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”
He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.
His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.
“The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”
Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.
“They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”
Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour will treat people-smugglers like terrorists if he wins the next election by freezing their assets and placing restrictions on their movement.
In an interview with The Times the Labour leader pledged that he would “smash the gangs” by expanding the use of civil orders that are used to target serious criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers.
The Labour leader says he will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who come to Britain. He says that the “quid pro quo” of any deal, such as accepting quotas of migrants from the EU, would be for future negotiations with Brussels.
In a clear dividing line with the Tories, Starmer confirmed that he would drop Conservative plans to ban cross-Channel migrants from claiming asylum in Britain. He described the government approach as unsustainable and said: “We have to process the claims. Those who aren’t entitled to be here should be returned and returned quickly.”
He said that the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda was inhumane, ineffective and represented poor value for money.
His comments represent his first significant intervention in the small boats crisis, an issue that will form a key part of next year’s general election campaign. The Labour leader said he wanted to take the same approach to people-smugglers as is used for terrorists and serious criminals.
“The features are the same,” he said. “Very few terrorist operations are within one nation, one border. They are nearly all cross-border. They are highly organised and involve the movement of people and apparatus across borders. There’s usually a lot of finance involved.”
Starmer wants to expand the use of serious crime prevention orders, which are used to restrict individuals’ movements and freeze their assets. They can be applied to suspects before they have been convicted. Starmer said he was prepared to change the law so they can be used against people-traffickers.
“They’ve been used, these powers, for terrorism, for drug trafficking, but they’ve never been used for serious, organised immigration crime,” he says. “My own view is that they should be used for that.”
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
What percentage of office workers use trigonometry on a daily basis?
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
Mr. Cookie, what's Labour's policy on transport spending, regarding the North? I don't disagree with Burnham's criticism, but I'd be surprised if Labour would do much differently.
Labour's policy appears to be vague hints that things might be vaguely better.
Hopefully, it’s a bit too early for Anabob to be about.
Outlier.
Payments made with cash rose for the first time in a decade last year as consumers struggled with rising prices.
But the number is still dwarfed by debit card use which accounted for half of all payments, its highest ever level.
Consumers often say they find it easier to manage their money using cash.
However UK Finance, which compiled the data, said it expected cash use to decline over the coming years, once the current financial squeeze has eased.
Even during cost of living pressures and the emergence from lockdowns, it said nearly 22 million people only used cash only once a month or not at all last year. That compares with just under one million who mainly used cash.
Yesterday I saw some children playing on those rides where you pretend to be driving a car or flying a helicopter or whatever. A one Euro coin in the slot - cash only.
BTW I am in the south of Spain this week. Forecast to reach 31degC today. Back to the British autumn on Sunday, alas.
My lad is off to uni today and we went out for a beer on Tuesday night. Trounced him at pool. It was contactless card (or phone or watch) only on the pool table.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Yes.
Schools have a uniform selection of colours they can select between that are stocked by supermarkets (and required by statutory guidance mentioned above). Hence why all the kids going to primary schools in blue or red t shirts have the same shade of blue or red.
If the school has chosen an improper colour that's the schools fault, not the parents. Like a school insisting their uniform t shirt isn't red, it's magenta.
I know you are a master at arguing that black is white. Try now to argue that black is grey.
It's all shades, yes.
If they've chosen an inappropriate colour that can't be purchased at supermarkets then that's the schools fault. Just as if they chose neon green as the colour. There's a range of acceptable colours for school uniforms that are able to be chosen, choosing a different shade of grey, or a different shade of red, or a colour not otherwise a available, is not acceptable.
The range of acceptable colours seems to be the same as those offered for German cars, Mormon missionaries or IBM salesman in the 1970s: dark grey, darker grey, darkest grey, blue, blue, charcoal and black.
(Ignoring the revolutionary red that some German cars come in.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Last Winter every day Russia was sending missiles against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now it seems that it is Ukraine that are sending missiles against Russian military targets every day. Without this defence system it becomes even harder for Russia to defend Crimea and their Navy is even more vulnerable.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Last Winter every day Russia was sending missiles against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now it seems that it is Ukraine that are sending missiles against Russian military targets every day. Without this defence system it becomes even harder for Russia to defend Crimea and their Navy is even more vulnerable.
Who could have foreseen that Ukraine's tactic of sending your missiles against enemy military targets, such as missile warehouses, radar, air defences etc night be a more fruitful decision than Russia's tactic of sending missiles against random apartment blocks attempting to terrorise the inhabitants?
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Daaaammmnnnn.
$1.2 billion? That is brill.
There are some issues with this sort of story. AIUI these air defence systems (whether Patriot, S-300 etc) are a system with many components, which can often be reasonably widely distributed. Launchers, radars, fire-control systems etc - each of which can be one or more vehicles.
To fully destroy a system, you would need to destroy all those vehicles, which can be a bit of a stretch. However, even destroying just one vehicle can significantly or fully degrade system performance before replacements are received. And the same is true for any of the crew who have died. And I bet there are only a few 'spare' of each vehicle type, meaning replacements would degrade systems elsewhere.
The system hit a few days back may not have been fully destroyed by some reports, but appears to have been degraded enough to prevent the attacks of the previous two nights.
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
What percentage of office workers use trigonometry on a daily basis?
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
But they might end up working on construction sites and we don't ask them to come to school in high vis and hard hats. But fair enough - I don't feel strongly about it. I largely just find the sight of 16 year olds in suit and tie a little odd.
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
We already do. It's death by wantonly and furiously cycling which is a law for centuries already so what is the reason for a new law?
Tragic accidents happen and that simply is part of life, if there's been a tragic accident then there's no reason for anyone to be imprisoned. If it's negligence though, then there would be.
If a pedestrian without looking steps onto a road and is hit by a cyclist/driver and dies then that's tragic and the cyclist/driver has to live with that for the rest of their life despite doing perhaps nothing wrong. Prison isn't appropriate there.
If on the other hand a pedestrian is killed by someone illegally driving or cycling on a pavement, then that's a different matter.
Each case needs to be looked at its own merits, but there's no need for new laws as we already have existing ones.
Wanton or furious cycling is too generic and doesn't cover the distinction between death by dangerous cycling or careless cycling as the legislation covers motor vehicles.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Yes.
Schools have a uniform selection of colours they can select between that are stocked by supermarkets (and required by statutory guidance mentioned above). Hence why all the kids going to primary schools in blue or red t shirts have the same shade of blue or red.
If the school has chosen an improper colour that's the schools fault, not the parents. Like a school insisting their uniform t shirt isn't red, it's magenta.
I know you are a master at arguing that black is white. Try now to argue that black is grey.
It's all shades, yes.
If they've chosen an inappropriate colour that can't be purchased at supermarkets then that's the schools fault. Just as if they chose neon green as the colour. There's a range of acceptable colours for school uniforms that are able to be chosen, choosing a different shade of grey, or a different shade of red, or a colour not otherwise a available, is not acceptable.
"The colors white and black are not usually thought of as shades of gray, but they can be thought of as shades of achromatic gray, as both contain equal amounts of red, blue and green. White is at the extreme upper end of the achromatic value scale and black is at the extreme lower end of the achromatic value scale, with all the colors normally considered tones of achromatic gray colors in between. Since achromatic colors have no hue, the hue code (h code) is left blank for achromatic colors (usually marked as a dash)."
Grey is not black is not blue is not purple. The school uniform is black. The Asda skirt is grey.
Such fearsome logical concepts don't usually escape your understanding.
Fake news. Both are grey.
If the official skirt was truly black it would be a scientific breakthrough and definitely subject to export restrictions.
Emperor Pu Yi: "But then, where's your skirt? In your country, men wear short skirts, do they not?" Reginald Johnston: "No, Your Majesty, Scotmen do not wear skirts. They wear kilts."
Insisting on a single supplier for skirts is going to be hard to defend when OFSTED arrive and want to discuss just how inclusive the school is. However, it looks from their uniform policy that skirts are optional and trousers can be bought from any retailer.
Putting a student into isolation, or “reflection” as they call it, for a uniform infringement seems draconian. However, how else does a school enforce any policy other than through sanction? It’s fine to say the pupil should not be punished for a decision by the parents, but that decision has been taken in full knowledge of what the policy and sanctions are. NB. ASDA do the pleated skirt in black, so the choice of grey does seem antagonistic towards the new uniform policy. Would be interesting to know whether black ASDA skirts are tolerated.
Overall, my sympathy lies with the Headteacher and Local Governing Body (uniform policies vary across the multi-academy trust). The trust is part of a group that is working hard to raise standards in a part of the country where they have lagged and it is unsurprising that they look at high performing schools and note their good behaviour, including adherence to uniform. There are outstanding schools in the area (St Mary’s College and South Hunsley) and it is right that all schools in Hull and the East Riding seek to emulate their standards.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
What percentage of office workers use trigonometry on a daily basis?
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
Younger Grandson went to one of those schools. Never saw him looking so smart. Before or after, now he’s at university!
Male hospital staff, even in clinical areas, always wore ties. (Not with scrubs, obvs!) Then someone (Infection control?) realised they were a hazard and as far as I can see now the only people in hospital with ties are visitors. Must remember to note at my next appointment!
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
Of course it's different. One's £8 and one's £22.
That's the only difference that actually matters. Presumably the school kept the child as a hostage because it wouldn't get the small part of £22 - £8 that the "official supplier" contributes to school funds.
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
What percentage of office workers use trigonometry on a daily basis?
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
But they might end up working on construction sites and we don't ask them to come to school in high vis and hard hats. But fair enough - I don't feel strongly about it. I largely just find the sight of 16 year olds in suit and tie a little odd.
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
What percentage of office workers use trigonometry on a daily basis?
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
But they might end up working on construction sites and we don't ask them to come to school in high vis and hard hats. But fair enough - I don't feel strongly about it. I largely just find the sight of 16 year olds in suit and tie a little odd.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
Your last sentence!
This is deflection from the two main issues
1) sweetheart deals between schools and authorised suppliers
2) punishing the child for a decision by their parents
As I understand it, school uniforms are a way of preventing an escalation of expensive fashion competition between kids at the expense of poorer parents. The "authorised supplier" scam is the opposite of this.
A lot of the jewelry rules in schools (and most schools have the same rules more or less) is to do with both avoidable injury and theft/bullying. These are rules brought in by years of experience rather than random decisions.
This in no way excuses the idiocy of the single source uniform case which started the discussion but the jewelry one I understand. Even 40 or more years ago at school I remember seeing a girl having her earlobe ripped during a fight.
Although obviously different circumstances, when I go offshore tomorrow I will have to leave all jewelry - including wedding rings which is the only jewelry I wear - behind as there is a uniform ban on them on rigs due to safety issues.
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
What percentage of office workers use trigonometry on a daily basis?
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
But they might end up working on construction sites and we don't ask them to come to school in high vis and hard hats. But fair enough - I don't feel strongly about it. I largely just find the sight of 16 year olds in suit and tie a little odd.
Just imagine them naked. Oh, hold on. No.
One hopes that the public speaking advice of just imagine your audience naked is not a part of teacher training.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Last Winter every day Russia was sending missiles against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now it seems that it is Ukraine that are sending missiles against Russian military targets every day. Without this defence system it becomes even harder for Russia to defend Crimea and their Navy is even more vulnerable.
Who could have foreseen that Ukraine's tactic of sending your missiles against enemy military targets, such as missile warehouses, radar, air defences etc night be a more fruitful decision than Russia's tactic of sending missiles against random apartment blocks attempting to terrorise the inhabitants?
What’s the difference between the Russians and both sides in WWII? I seem to recall residential areas being bombed when I was young. And celebrated by those doing the bombing!
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Last Winter every day Russia was sending missiles against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now it seems that it is Ukraine that are sending missiles against Russian military targets every day. Without this defence system it becomes even harder for Russia to defend Crimea and their Navy is even more vulnerable.
Who could have foreseen that Ukraine's tactic of sending your missiles against enemy military targets, such as missile warehouses, radar, air defences etc night be a more fruitful decision than Russia's tactic of sending missiles against random apartment blocks attempting to terrorise the inhabitants?
What’s the difference between the Russians and both sides in WWII? I seem to recall residential areas being bombed when I was young. And celebrated by those doing the bombing!
WWII was a Total War. The entire nation was geared towards war, either serving in the military or supporting it. Oh and of course the military targets were getting hit too.
Russia lobbing half a dozen missiles a night at civilian targets while missing or not aiming at military ones is just incompetence and terrorism, not total war.
Number of long-term sick hits record high of 2.6 million The level of illness among the population is costing lives and harming the economy, a new report has warned. An additional 491,433 people were off work due to their health in the three months to July, according to official figures. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/number-of-long-term-sick-hits-record-high-of-2-6-million-12959783
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
Yes - however a suspended sentence does not involve time in prison, and reading the trivial reasons for sentences being suspended is a depressing experience.
The argument is that we need a systematic, thoughtful and rational review as has been promised and not delivered for many years, rather than backside-saving stunts pandering to the Daily Mail - the latter is not a reasonable method and will just create bad, disfunctional law.
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
What percentage of office workers use trigonometry on a daily basis?
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
But they might end up working on construction sites and we don't ask them to come to school in high vis and hard hats. But fair enough - I don't feel strongly about it. I largely just find the sight of 16 year olds in suit and tie a little odd.
Just imagine them naked. Oh, hold on. No.
One hopes that the public speaking advice of just imagine your audience naked is not a part of teacher training.
A retired secondary school teacher of my acquaintance talked of lectures on dealing with fourteen year old tarts. “Always keep a table between you and the girl” was part of it.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Last Winter every day Russia was sending missiles against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now it seems that it is Ukraine that are sending missiles against Russian military targets every day. Without this defence system it becomes even harder for Russia to defend Crimea and their Navy is even more vulnerable.
Who could have foreseen that Ukraine's tactic of sending your missiles against enemy military targets, such as missile warehouses, radar, air defences etc night be a more fruitful decision than Russia's tactic of sending missiles against random apartment blocks attempting to terrorise the inhabitants?
What’s the difference between the Russians and both sides in WWII? I seem to recall residential areas being bombed when I was young. And celebrated by those doing the bombing!
The difference is the world has moved on by 70 years. Looked at with a neutral eye in the post war era it became obvious that 'bombing your enemies into submission' didn't work. Indeed I still find it remarkable that WW2 leaders could, almost in the same breath, talk about 'The Blitz Spirit' and 'Breaking the morale of the enemy' as if they were a different species and somehow more prone to defeatism in the face of adversity.
Both sides used poison gas in WW1. Both sides used torture in WW2 . Both of these are now considered war crimes.
We should not judge the past by the mores of today but equally we should not excuse today's crimes because of what was accptable in the past.
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
Yes - however a suspended sentence does not involve time in prison, and reading the trivial reasons for sentences being suspended is a depressing experience.
The argument is that we need a systematic, thoughtful and rational review as has been promised and not delivered for many years, rather than backside-saving stunts pandering to the Daily Mail - the latter is not a reasonable method and will just create bad, disfunctional law.
Here, for example, is a Cycling UK press release from 2018, asking the Government for a comprehensive review as they had promised in 2014, rather than tinkering at the edges.
We are still waiting, but all we get is political stunts - which is why my criticism of this Govt on these questions is so bitter.
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Head of Campaigns, said: “The way in which the justice system deals with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users hasn’t been fit for purpose for years.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
They will have a learnt valuable lessons about the power of branding, advertising and how to ignore petty bureaucracy, sounds like good schooling to me.
At school, I always insisted on pushing the limits of what was acceptable in terms of uniform. Don't know why - I wasn't particularly rebellious in any other way. I had a series of weary and half-hearted reprimands from the deputy headmaster, who really didn't want to be going through the process of telling off an otherwise well-behaved child for something he didn't really care about, which I dealt with very politely and affably, assuring him I'd get something different, and then not doing so. I don't know why. Obscurely, I felt it was important to find at least some rules to break on principle, especially if it could be done in a way which caused nobody any inconvenience.
Hmm, don't you think, from your perspectvie as an adult, you caused the poor deputy significant inconvenience?
(I also wince at some of my own teenage behaviour ...)
Well, yes, a bit. I'm not massively proud of it. I think I thought that as a child, too. I quite liked the fella, and didn't want to make his life difficult. I made sure to be very nice about it. I didn't want a big confrontation with authority; I just thought the rules needed a bit of mild breaking.
One of my first jobs, aged 18, (the first one that was medium term - I did 7 years for them in the end) had a uniform policy requiring staff to wear a company branded polo shirt. For some reason I didn't fancy this, and somehow wangled a deal where they "forgot" to issue me with one, and I therefore had a suitable defense against any disciplinary action. Looking back, I've literally no idea either why I wanted this, or why my line manager went along with it!
Incidentally, it was a good example of what I think we should do instead of university for 80% of people - I went in as an 18 year old kid on the shop floor, drilling holes in aluminium strips for hour after hour for minimum wage. After 7 years, I'd done almost every job in the place other than the MD's, I was earning a good chunk over the minimum wage, I'd learnt an awful lot about how a business works from the ground up, and I was a much more rounded character than I'd been when I started. The skills, soft and hard, I learnt there were vastly more valuable than most uni courses (certainly outside the hard sciences), and instead of amassing a mountain of debt, I paid my way through the whole experience.
I'm now running my own SME, and I think a lot of the success I have now goes back to that era of working my way through a factory in my late teens / early 20s.
Nah the story is bollocks. The school skirt is black and Asda's is grey.
They are using misleading pictures in the BBC news story.
Yebbut the school’s own pdf (available in that Twitter thread) says the skirt ‘must’ be purchased from Rawcliffes, their official supplier.
For sure I get that. But the Asda skirt is a different colour. The BBC didn't have to gild the lilly.
Edit: or for emphasis indulge in fake news as I believe it's called now.
One is dark grey, the other is a darker grey. So what. They aren't different colours. That's gilding the lily. Deflection. Fake news.
Grey vs black. Why not pastel pink, it's still a skirt.
Asda:
Rawcliffe:
Different. I mean if you are going to have a school uniform then have a school uniform or don't bother. What about all the children who abided by the rule and then see someone else come in and pay half what they had to pay.
They will have a learnt valuable lessons about the power of branding, advertising and how to ignore petty bureaucracy, sounds like good schooling to me.
At school, I always insisted on pushing the limits of what was acceptable in terms of uniform. Don't know why - I wasn't particularly rebellious in any other way. I had a series of weary and half-hearted reprimands from the deputy headmaster, who really didn't want to be going through the process of telling off an otherwise well-behaved child for something he didn't really care about, which I dealt with very politely and affably, assuring him I'd get something different, and then not doing so. I don't know why. Obscurely, I felt it was important to find at least some rules to break on principle, especially if it could be done in a way which caused nobody any inconvenience.
Hmm, don't you think, from your perspectvie as an adult, you caused the poor deputy significant inconvenience?
(I also wince at some of my own teenage behaviour ...)
Well, yes, a bit. I'm not massively proud of it. I think I thought that as a child, too. I quite liked the fella, and didn't want to make his life difficult. I made sure to be very nice about it. I didn't want a big confrontation with authority; I just thought the rules needed a bit of mild breaking.
One of my first jobs, aged 18, (the first one that was medium term - I did 7 years for them in the end) had a uniform policy requiring staff to wear a company branded polo shirt. For some reason I didn't fancy this, and somehow wangled a deal where they "forgot" to issue me with one, and I therefore had a suitable defense against any disciplinary action. Looking back, I've literally no idea either why I wanted this, or why my line manager went along with it!
Incidentally, it was a good example of what I think we should do instead of university for 80% of people - I went in as an 18 year old kid on the shop floor, drilling holes in aluminium strips for hour after hour for minimum wage. After 7 years, I'd done almost every job in the place other than the MD's, I was earning a good chunk over the minimum wage, I'd learnt an awful lot about how a business works from the ground up, and I was a much more rounded character than I'd been when I started. The skills, soft and hard, I learnt there were vastly more valuable than most uni courses (certainly outside the hard sciences), and instead of amassing a mountain of debt, I paid my way through the whole experience.
I'm now running my own SME, and I think a lot of the success I have now goes back to that era of working my way through a factory in my late teens / early 20s.
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
We already do. It's death by wantonly and furiously cycling which is a law for centuries already so what is the reason for a new law?
Tragic accidents happen and that simply is part of life, if there's been a tragic accident then there's no reason for anyone to be imprisoned. If it's negligence though, then there would be.
If a pedestrian without looking steps onto a road and is hit by a cyclist/driver and dies then that's tragic and the cyclist/driver has to live with that for the rest of their life despite doing perhaps nothing wrong. Prison isn't appropriate there.
If on the other hand a pedestrian is killed by someone illegally driving or cycling on a pavement, then that's a different matter.
Each case needs to be looked at its own merits, but there's no need for new laws as we already have existing ones.
Most of your comment is fair - however the last paragraph ignores that where existing law is an illogical mess, it desperately needs to be redrawn.
Take careless driving, which is defined as a less serious version of dangerous driving - "below" and "far below" 'standards expected of a careful and competent driver'.
The upshot of that is that inherently dangerous behaviour, such as overtaking round a blind bend or over a blind brow on the wrong side of the road, or driving for a distance at high speed (say 50mph) into a blinding sunset, is often charged as "careless", or a charge of dangerous driving plea bargained with the CPS down to a guilty plea for careless.
Careless is to do with inattention; dangerous is a different category of behaviour, not a difference of degree.
Environment Agency failing to monitor water firms in England, data suggests Exclusive: Watchdog is supposed to audit firms yearly to ensure they are not illegally dumping sewage, but 36% of audits since 2010 are missing ... Ever since 2010 when the law changed to allow the privatised water industry to self-report on its operations – known as “operator self-monitoring” – the EA is supposed to audit companies each year to make sure they are accurately recording how their treatment works operate.
The checks are to ensure that water companies are abiding by the permits that control how they operate, that they are not illegally dumping raw sewage and that they are honestly recording how much effluent they treat and the quality of the treatment.
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
We already do. It's death by wantonly and furiously cycling which is a law for centuries already so what is the reason for a new law?
Tragic accidents happen and that simply is part of life, if there's been a tragic accident then there's no reason for anyone to be imprisoned. If it's negligence though, then there would be.
If a pedestrian without looking steps onto a road and is hit by a cyclist/driver and dies then that's tragic and the cyclist/driver has to live with that for the rest of their life despite doing perhaps nothing wrong. Prison isn't appropriate there.
If on the other hand a pedestrian is killed by someone illegally driving or cycling on a pavement, then that's a different matter.
Each case needs to be looked at its own merits, but there's no need for new laws as we already have existing ones.
Most of your comment is fair - however the last paragraph ignores that where existing law is an illogical mess, it desperately needs to be redrawn.
Take careless driving, which is defined as a less serious version of dangerous driving - "below" and "far below" 'standards expected of a careful and competent driver'.
The upshot of that is that inherently dangerous behaviour, such as overtaking round a blind bend or over a blind brow on the wrong side of the road, or driving for a distance at high speed (say 50mph) into a blinding sunset, is often charged as "careless", or a charge of dangerous driving plea bargained with the CPS down to a guilty plea for careless.
Careless is to do with inattention; dangerous is a different category of behaviour, not a difference of degree.
Which is why a comprehensive review is required.
Plea bargains are a part of the legal system, I don't like them though at least we're not as bad as America with them.
But the language as used seems reasonable to me, given it needs to be phrased in language 'a reasonable person' can understand if it ends up before a jury.
If someone is acting dangerously, as you say, then absolutely that is far below the standards expected, so the existing law already applies.
On topic-ish, it is odd how as the workplace has become less and less formal, it feels like kids uniforms have become progressively more elaborate. When I were a lad it was school trousers, white shirt, tie and a dark blue sweater.
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
School sixth forms are odd too. Round here they tend to insist on 'formal office wear' for sixth form rather than school uniform, leading to the odd spectacle of children walking around dressed in suits and ties. Barely one man in 20 now wears a tie in the office.
What percentage of office workers use trigonometry on a daily basis?
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
Younger Grandson went to one of those schools. Never saw him looking so smart. Before or after, now he’s at university!
Male hospital staff, even in clinical areas, always wore ties. (Not with scrubs, obvs!) Then someone (Infection control?) realised they were a hazard and as far as I can see now the only people in hospital with ties are visitors. Must remember to note at my next appointment!
In my recent (June 2023) experience, the way to identify Doctors in very sensitive (eg haematology) wards is that they are the only ones not wearing some variety of hospital-supplied uniform.
Off the top of my head I can't recall whether Chaplains were in a uniform. However they are far less numerous than Doctors.
The NHS employed an estimated 1.96 million people in June 2023, an increase of 21,000 (1.1%) compared with March 2023 and an increase of 78,000 (4.1%) compared with June 2022.
And an increase of 266,000 since 2019 and 402,000 since 2010.
Have any Conservative MPs noticed this ?
So (assuming these numbers are correct) under the Coalition/Tories NHS employment hs gone up by more than 25%.
A serious question which is not meant to have a political slant... what are all these additional jobs?
We know they are not recruiting enough nurses, doctors or other front line staff in specific areas. So how is it the size of the NHS has increased by 25%?
As I say, this is not intended as a leading question but a genuine enquiry.
May depend on the counting. For example, some PHE roles were folded into NHS England when that was scrapped and partly replaced by UKHSA. Also NHS Digital is now folded back into NHS England. If that wasn't counted in the total before then you get a paper increase that doesn't really mean anything.
Ukraine conducted a major special operation near occupied Yevpatoria in Crimea last night. This is different from the attack on the ships in Sevastopol. Ukraine's security service SBU says its drones first struck Russian air defense radars and antennas. 1/
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable... https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Last Winter every day Russia was sending missiles against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Now it seems that it is Ukraine that are sending missiles against Russian military targets every day. Without this defence system it becomes even harder for Russia to defend Crimea and their Navy is even more vulnerable.
Who could have foreseen that Ukraine's tactic of sending your missiles against enemy military targets, such as missile warehouses, radar, air defences etc night be a more fruitful decision than Russia's tactic of sending missiles against random apartment blocks attempting to terrorise the inhabitants?
What’s the difference between the Russians and both sides in WWII? I seem to recall residential areas being bombed when I was young. And celebrated by those doing the bombing!
Just catching up with Rishi Sunak General Election Hail Mary Pass number 56.
We've had "I'll stop funding LTNs" from numpty Mark Harper, before he even knew what one was. We've had "Govt will cancel the ULEZ under the GLA Act 1999", before they discovered it would not be a suitable use of the power. We've had ambitions for Active Travel essentially abolished to shave about 1p off the price of petrol for a few months. We've had "Number Plates for Cyclists" by numpty Grant Shapps, whilst he was in possession of a report from his own department explaining why the proposal was BS.
Now we have legislative time to create Death / Serious Injury by Dangerous Cycling.
A comprehensive review of road legislation was promised in 2018 or so, and everyone in the field has been asking for it to happen since, which would give a chance for thought not PR stunts, incorporate the above and many other things which are needed, including putting rational definitions in place for "Dangerous" and "Careless".
Govt Response: Crickets and Arse Sitting.
Of the 8 or 9 occurrences of pedestrian death caused by collision with a cyclist over the last decade, I can only think of *one* where the cyclist did not receive a prison sentence - that was Robert Mobey.
Meanwhile it is unusual for a motor vehicle driver where a pedestrian is killed in a collision to get a prison sentence. The last number I saw was one in ten.
What a shitshow this Govt has become.
Add suspended and it would be much more. However it is obviously less likely a cyclist would kill a pedestrian than a driver even if both were just careless, however it can still happen.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
We already do. It's death by wantonly and furiously cycling which is a law for centuries already so what is the reason for a new law?
Tragic accidents happen and that simply is part of life, if there's been a tragic accident then there's no reason for anyone to be imprisoned. If it's negligence though, then there would be.
If a pedestrian without looking steps onto a road and is hit by a cyclist/driver and dies then that's tragic and the cyclist/driver has to live with that for the rest of their life despite doing perhaps nothing wrong. Prison isn't appropriate there.
If on the other hand a pedestrian is killed by someone illegally driving or cycling on a pavement, then that's a different matter.
Each case needs to be looked at its own merits, but there's no need for new laws as we already have existing ones.
Most of your comment is fair - however the last paragraph ignores that where existing law is an illogical mess, it desperately needs to be redrawn.
Take careless driving, which is defined as a less serious version of dangerous driving - "below" and "far below" 'standards expected of a careful and competent driver'.
The upshot of that is that inherently dangerous behaviour, such as overtaking round a blind bend or over a blind brow on the wrong side of the road, or driving for a distance at high speed (say 50mph) into a blinding sunset, is often charged as "careless", or a charge of dangerous driving plea bargained with the CPS down to a guilty plea for careless.
Careless is to do with inattention; dangerous is a different category of behaviour, not a difference of degree.
Which is why a comprehensive review is required.
Plea bargains are a part of the legal system, I don't like them though at least we're not as bad as America with them.
But the language as used seems reasonable to me, given it needs to be phrased in language 'a reasonable person' can understand if it ends up before a jury.
If someone is acting dangerously, as you say, then absolutely that is far below the standards expected, so the existing law already applies.
I think you're wrong on that, and a greater familiarity with how actual cases are actually charged might change your view.
But I'm not about to begin peppering PB with scores of dangerous drivers running down pedestrians and cyclists videos, or vids where deliberate assaults by driving at people on cycles were charged as careless, PBers will be glad to hear.
The TLDR is that men can't or shouldn't be expected to change so women just have to avoid all those careers where this happens. Back to home and hearth, girls!
I have a tiny scintilla of sympathy for the officers who were trying to square two impossible things that day. On the one hand the lockdown mania and dire threat to public health (no drinking coffee on that bench, don't you dare drive 10 minutes for a walk or you will die) and the justifiable rage at what happened to Sarah Everard, and the desire to commemorate and protest. That they handled it badly is true. But what else could they have done, if the lockdown rules needed to be obeyed?
Comments
This is deflection from the two main issues
1) sweetheart deals between schools and authorised suppliers
2) punishing the child for a decision by their parents
As I understand it, school uniforms are a way of preventing an escalation of expensive fashion competition between kids at the expense of poorer parents. The "authorised supplier" scam is the opposite of this.
Morning all!
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/angry-parents-hit-out-uniform-8738406
As for the photo on the top of this thread - I actually can't see the difference both skirts look dark grey to me.
In my experience, schools run by academies are marginally more responsive to parents' wishes than schools run by the council.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/23944676/matt-hancock-sas-who-dares-wins-interrogation/
The Sun brings us real political news. Matt Hancock remains an MP.
A serious question which is not meant to have a political slant... what are all these additional jobs?
We know they are not recruiting enough nurses, doctors or other front line staff in specific areas. So how is it the size of the NHS has increased by 25%?
As I say, this is not intended as a leading question but a genuine enquiry.
From your link
I don't know why. Obscurely, I felt it was important to find at least some rules to break on principle, especially if it could be done in a way which caused nobody any inconvenience.
There is therefore no reason you cannot have death by dangerous and careless driving for cyclists as we already have for motor vehicle drivers
(a) increase in part-timing (notably in nursing)
(b) ditto in agency and contractor work (no idea if counted in)
(c) staff turnover in the yeart in question being v. high so both the leaver and incomer are counted
Those two factors also raise the possibility that some people are being counted twice over (e.g. someone who is an established part time nurse but also does some agency work).
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/met-police-apology-damages-women-arrested-sarah-everard-vigil-b1106876.html
Meanwhile the good doctor doubles down - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/backlash-over-doctor-arguing-female-surgeons-need-to-toughen-up-257gw6cww. Apparently, other doctors of his generation feel the same way as him, it's all trivial, used to be far worse, other women have coped with it and anyway medicine is not alone in having a culture of bullying and sexual abuse.
The TLDR is that men can't or shouldn't be expected to change so women just have to avoid all those careers where this happens. Back to home and hearth, girls!
Now it's blazers, badges, tartan skirts and shiny shoes and whatnot. Weird that my kids will probably never dress as smartly day-to-day as they will between the ages of 11 and 16. Why do we do it? As a parent I appreciate the practicality of uniform (in primary at least, it's cheap and it makes getting the kids ready for school easier) but when you take a step back there is something quite odd about the whole concept.
(I also wince at some of my own teenage behaviour ...)
And.its not the only outrageous part, if you search for news about the school and their uniform: the school has committed criminal damage against clothing (cutting off bits thiley don't like), isolated girls for not wearing tights despite health issues. The chair of goveyand.the head should be ashamed of themselves.
Happened before - grammar schools used to ape Arnoldian "public" schools in the late C19/early C20. BA and MA gowns for the masters, prefect's and sports colour ties, etc. etc.
I think I thought that as a child, too. I quite liked the fella, and didn't want to make his life difficult. I made sure to be very nice about it. I didn't want a big confrontation with authority; I just thought the rules needed a bit of mild breaking.
Furthermore as far as I'm aware when it comes to fabrics, or most materials in fact, getting a "true black" is nigh on impossible so yes it's all shades of grey.
Moreover it's moot as if the school had chosen a different colour (they haven't) then it'd still be their fault for doing so. The law and morals are that uniform is supposed to be easily affordable. That's the entire point of it.
It’s coming up 10 years since Osborne’s “Northern Powerhouse” speech and the Tories are set to scrap the last of his rail pledges.
The result?
The southern half of England gets a modern rail system and the North left with Victorian infrastructure.
Levelling up?
My a**e.
https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1702185441217188012?s=20
The NHS needs to be simplified. I suspect there are a lot of activities that are unnecessary or duplicated.
Just increasing funding will not tackle the problem. Internal markets exacerbate the problem. Simplify and let front line professionals get on with their job without over interference from the bureaucracy.
Still, it's not entirely unusual for a doctor to be unable to admit they are wrong in the face of plentiful evidence.
Tragic accidents happen and that simply is part of life, if there's been a tragic accident then there's no reason for anyone to be imprisoned. If it's negligence though, then there would be.
If a pedestrian without looking steps onto a road and is hit by a cyclist/driver and dies then that's tragic and the cyclist/driver has to live with that for the rest of their life despite doing perhaps nothing wrong. Prison isn't appropriate there.
If on the other hand a pedestrian is killed by someone illegally driving or cycling on a pavement, then that's a different matter.
Each case needs to be looked at its own merits, but there's no need for new laws as we already have existing ones.
9/11 is the real origin of the tense relationship between Viktor Orbán and the US. Until Trump's invitation in 2019, Orbán was a persona non grata in the White House. The reason: as prime minister, he refused to condemn a Hungarian far-right leader's insult.
After the attacks, antisemitic Hungarian politician István Csurka made the following comments in statement and in writing:
"We deeply sympathise with the innocent victims, the material destruction is shocking, but the responsibility for it must also be borne by the US globalist policy. What is happening in Palestine and Israel, and what is happening all over the world, the unbridled advance of globalism, has certainly had [this attack as] a direct consequence."..
https://twitter.com/panyiszabolcs/status/1701320897414443198
I went through a phase of wearing black or grey jeans instead of flannel trousers or a suit, sometimes a pyjama top with tie instead of a formal shirt and tie, doc Martin boots instead of formal shoes. It was a mild exploration of boundaries and thinking I was expressing my individuality - some dons would send you back to change into correct clothing others didn’t give a monkeys so you considered what you could get away with and when.
Then I went through the counter-revolution where I decided I wanted to be dressed very smartly for lessons , tailored suits, linen suits in the summer. None of it had any bearing on what I learned but funnily enough when I suddenly started being overly smart the staff had a completely different perspective of me to my benefit.
Territory illegally occupied by Russia = 157,500 sq. km.
Mr. Cookie, what's Labour's policy on transport spending, regarding the North? I don't disagree with Burnham's criticism, but I'd be surprised if Labour would do much differently.
The level of illness among the population is costing lives and harming the economy, a new report has warned. An additional 491,433 people were off work due to their health in the three months to July, according to official figures.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/number-of-long-term-sick-hits-record-high-of-2-6-million-12959783
The migrants are then smuggling themselves. So they are guilty. Even better, they carry their cash on them. Which means it can be seized. We are talking about all the family savings.
So we can detain them indefinitely and seize their money.
Trebles all round.
Can I get the contract to use their labour while in custody as terrorists? I have some cotton fields that need pickin'
With a pencil.
Women have a right not to be sexually harassed, either physically or verbally. It is not good enough for us not to be raped but have to put up with everything short of that.
And that is precisely what he is saying: that they have to deal with it. Not that skilled, highly trained professional men should learn to behave in a decent professional manner in the workplace.
Medical staff are often doing huge amounts of paperwork. Often of the most bullshit kind.
Testing is considered non-frontline. But testing is a blocker to lots of stuff. We could speed up testing for many, many things. But it isn't politically sexy like "more nurses"
I am taking an average of Savanta, Deltapoll, Techne, YouGov, Omnisis and Redfield & Wilton who poll each week. This helps provide a degree of comparability to enable any trends to be identified.
Omnisis polling is now provided under the name We Think, but I am not aware that there is any change in methodology so I am using this polling data.
There was a 4 week gap over August, but we have now two weeks of polling for each of the six companies.
...After disabling their radar capabilities, Ukraine's navy fired two Neptune cruise missiles at the Russian S-300/400 Triumph air defense systems worth $1.2 billion. Russian sources confirm the strikes rendered the systems inoperable...
https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1702239957908082756
Schooling surely isn't just about preparing people for what they'll definitely need in adult life, but what they might too.
If you can wear a suit properly you can wear smart casual, but the same isn't necessarily true in reverse.
And a much higher than 5% of interviews will expect formal wear. So any school that doesn't prepare kids for that is putting their pupils at a competitive disadvantage.
$1.2 billion? That is brill.
(Ignoring the revolutionary red that some German cars come in.
To fully destroy a system, you would need to destroy all those vehicles, which can be a bit of a stretch. However, even destroying just one vehicle can significantly or fully degrade system performance before replacements are received. And the same is true for any of the crew who have died. And I bet there are only a few 'spare' of each vehicle type, meaning replacements would degrade systems elsewhere.
The system hit a few days back may not have been fully destroyed by some reports, but appears to have been degraded enough to prevent the attacks of the previous two nights.
But fair enough - I don't feel strongly about it. I largely just find the sight of 16 year olds in suit and tie a little odd.
There is a clear distinction between the 2
If the official skirt was truly black it would be a scientific breakthrough and definitely subject to export restrictions.
Emperor Pu Yi: "But then, where's your skirt? In your country, men wear short skirts, do they not?"
Reginald Johnston: "No, Your Majesty, Scotmen do not wear skirts. They wear kilts."
Insisting on a single supplier for skirts is going to be hard to defend when OFSTED arrive and want to discuss just how inclusive the school is. However, it looks from their uniform policy that skirts are optional and trousers can be bought from any retailer.
Putting a student into isolation, or “reflection” as they call it, for a uniform infringement seems draconian. However, how else does a school enforce any policy other than through sanction? It’s fine to say the pupil should not be punished for a decision by the parents, but that decision has been taken in full knowledge of what the policy and sanctions are. NB. ASDA do the pleated skirt in black, so the choice of grey does seem antagonistic towards the new uniform policy. Would be interesting to know whether black ASDA skirts are tolerated.
Overall, my sympathy lies with the Headteacher and Local Governing Body (uniform policies vary across the multi-academy trust). The trust is part of a group that is working hard to raise standards in a part of the country where they have lagged and it is unsurprising that they look at high performing schools and note their good behaviour, including adherence to uniform. There are outstanding schools in the area (St Mary’s College and South Hunsley) and it is right that all schools in Hull and the East Riding seek to emulate their standards.
Male hospital staff, even in clinical areas, always wore ties. (Not with scrubs, obvs!) Then someone (Infection control?) realised they were a hazard and as far as I can see now the only people in hospital with ties are visitors.
Must remember to note at my next appointment!
That's the only difference that actually matters. Presumably the school kept the child as a hostage because it wouldn't get the small part of £22 - £8 that the "official supplier" contributes to school funds.
So we can add extortion to the school's crimes.
This in no way excuses the idiocy of the single source uniform case which started the discussion but the jewelry one I understand. Even 40 or more years ago at school I remember seeing a girl having her earlobe ripped during a fight.
Although obviously different circumstances, when I go offshore tomorrow I will have to leave all jewelry - including wedding rings which is the only jewelry I wear - behind as there is a uniform ban on them on rigs due to safety issues.
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/plans-in-for-4-5m-millom-arts-centre/
Russia lobbing half a dozen missiles a night at civilian targets while missing or not aiming at military ones is just incompetence and terrorism, not total war.
NHS England waiting list hits record high as 7.6m on hold for routine treatment
https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-england-waiting-list-hits-record-high-as-7-6m-wait-for-routine-treatment-12960965
The argument is that we need a systematic, thoughtful and rational review as has been promised and not delivered for many years, rather than backside-saving stunts pandering to the Daily Mail - the latter is not a reasonable method and will just create bad, disfunctional law.
“Always keep a table between you and the girl” was part of it.
Both sides used poison gas in WW1. Both sides used torture in WW2 . Both of these are now considered war crimes.
We should not judge the past by the mores of today but equally we should not excuse today's crimes because of what was accptable in the past.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66796575
We are still waiting, but all we get is political stunts - which is why my criticism of this Govt on these questions is so bitter.
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Head of Campaigns, said: “The way in which the justice system deals with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users hasn’t been fit for purpose for years.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/new-dangerous-cycling-laws-tinkering-around-edges-full-review
https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1702245649188561094
Incidentally, it was a good example of what I think we should do instead of university for 80% of people - I went in as an 18 year old kid on the shop floor, drilling holes in aluminium strips for hour after hour for minimum wage. After 7 years, I'd done almost every job in the place other than the MD's, I was earning a good chunk over the minimum wage, I'd learnt an awful lot about how a business works from the ground up, and I was a much more rounded character than I'd been when I started. The skills, soft and hard, I learnt there were vastly more valuable than most uni courses (certainly outside the hard sciences), and instead of amassing a mountain of debt, I paid my way through the whole experience.
I'm now running my own SME, and I think a lot of the success I have now goes back to that era of working my way through a factory in my late teens / early 20s.
Take careless driving, which is defined as a less serious version of dangerous driving - "below" and "far below" 'standards expected of a careful and competent driver'.
The upshot of that is that inherently dangerous behaviour, such as overtaking round a blind bend or over a blind brow on the wrong side of the road, or driving for a distance at high speed (say 50mph) into a blinding sunset, is often charged as "careless", or a charge of dangerous driving plea bargained with the CPS down to a guilty plea for careless.
Careless is to do with inattention; dangerous is a different category of behaviour, not a difference of degree.
Which is why a comprehensive review is required.
Exclusive: Watchdog is supposed to audit firms yearly to ensure they are not illegally dumping sewage, but 36% of audits since 2010 are missing
...
Ever since 2010 when the law changed to allow the privatised water industry to self-report on its operations – known as “operator self-monitoring” – the EA is supposed to audit companies each year to make sure they are accurately recording how their treatment works operate.
The checks are to ensure that water companies are abiding by the permits that control how they operate, that they are not illegally dumping raw sewage and that they are honestly recording how much effluent they treat and the quality of the treatment.
According to the FoI data, 36% of audits over the past 13 years were not carried out or are inexplicably missing from records.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/13/environment-agency-failing-to-monitor-water-firms-in-england-data-suggests
The Guardian soft-pedalling in case it is cock-up rather than conspiracy.
But the language as used seems reasonable to me, given it needs to be phrased in language 'a reasonable person' can understand if it ends up before a jury.
If someone is acting dangerously, as you say, then absolutely that is far below the standards expected, so the existing law already applies.
Off the top of my head I can't recall whether Chaplains were in a uniform. However they are far less numerous than Doctors.
Putin is no worse than Hitler.
But I'm not about to begin peppering PB with scores of dangerous drivers running down pedestrians and cyclists videos, or vids where deliberate assaults by driving at people on cycles were charged as careless, PBers will be glad to hear.