The joke during lockdown was that an annual subscription to the educational content of Netflix at £100/year compared well with your university fees (also remote) of £9,000.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
That’s a very fine line to tread though, and it’s difficult to be continually shocking without occasionally going completely off the deep end. One particular line might also be fine in one context, but not in another.
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
The privately educated and the parents of children in private education are massively over-represented on PB.
No real point engaging in the debate here as the balance of opinion is massively distorted from the population as a whole.
That's true, but the debate does bring forth some entertaining defences of private schools. I've heard most of them before (many times) but occasionally you get a new one. Eg today's 'Eton is like a charity bookshop'. That's a cracker. I wouldn't have wanted to have just gone on in life never having heard that.
Well, it brings out different ideas about what the purpose of education is. If the main purpose is to promote equality, then yes, independent schools (and private universities) stand very much in the way of that purpose.
Yes, at heart this is a values thing. I have no problem with people saying, 'ok yes, private schools foster and reinforce class inequality, but I nevertheless look favourably on them for these other reasons xyz'. However it's rare that this happens. I guess because people are reluctant to admit that reducing inequality isn't one of their priorities. Not sure why. It's only one of many things that can be important to you. No crime if it isn't. So why pretend? Let's be honest and then the argument is much improved.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
The privately educated and the parents of children in private education are massively over-represented on PB.
No real point engaging in the debate here as the balance of opinion is massively distorted from the population as a whole.
That's true, but the debate does bring forth some entertaining defences of private schools. I've heard most of them before (many times) but occasionally you get a new one. Eg today's 'Eton is like a charity bookshop'. That's a cracker. I wouldn't have wanted to have just gone on in life never having heard that.
Well, it brings out different ideas about what the purpose of education is. If the main purpose is to promote equality, then yes, independent schools (and private universities) stand very much in the way of that purpose.
Yes, at heart this is a values thing. I have no problem with people saying, 'ok yes, private schools foster and reinforce class inequality, but I nevertheless look favourably on them for these other reasons xyz'. However it's rare that this happens. I guess because people are reluctant to admit that reducing inequality isn't one of their priorities. Not sure why. It's only one of many things that can be important to you. No crime if it isn't. So why pretend? Let's be honest and then the argument is much improved.
It would have been better to abolish private schools in the 1960s/70s and keep grammar schools rather than vice versa.
And Susan Hall hasn't been given a main slot at the Tory Party conference. Sort it out Tories.
I think Sadiq Khan would also welcome that
Well, yes, there is a factor that she could damage the Tories by doing a shit speech, or conversely that the Tories could tarnish her by association, and it's better for her to do a Ruth Davidson and not appear prominently Tory-esque, but I'm not sure either of these things is likely. I don't think anyone is unclear on Hall's Toryism, politically she is quite aligned with new Sunakism, and I imagine she'd go down quite well at the conference. They should sort it.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
There's quite a difference between all three of those dudes. Irving was a Holocaust denier and Nazi-sympathiser, that's a bit more challenging than saying "I wouldn't shag her" on British TV news
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
Initially I thought Fox was a tragic figure: a minor celebrity who'd suffered some kind of mental breakdown / radicalization by visiting too many far-right websites. But, yes, you might be right and it's all just a cynical careerist ploy. I now suspect Fox is modelling himself on Milo Yiannopoulos, who first put the notion of the gender-pay-gap myth, which Fox mentioned during that broadcast, into the mainstream almost a decade ago.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
Register office for Mrs Soup and me, followed by a slap-up lunch with our two witnesses. Lasted 40 years (and counting).
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
That’s a very fine line to tread though, and it’s difficult to be continually shocking without occasionally going completely off the deep end. One particular line might also be fine in one context, but not in another.
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
Yes, it's a very perilous path for a pundit. As Hopkins discovered. And there is always pressure on you to up the ante and be MORE provocative to keep the clicks coming
Since we are doing independent schools, I looked up my own school and it comes out like this. Ignoring support for other schools etc. I think these numbers are not far off the high end of reasonable expectations from a school's own resources.
This is Nottingham High School - Heads' Conference. Good academically.
Full fees: 18k per annum, which is a little below average for the sector. Annual income: £20m. Pupils: ~1000 in toto in Junior and Senior schools. I'm ignoring infants. Endowment: £15-18m of investments, much in property. Bursaries: ~8% of fee income goes to means-tested bursaries, based also on academic performance. £1.4m in 2021/22. Just under 10% of pupils receive means tested bursaries, of which 3/4 are 75% or more of fees, and 90-95% are 50%+ of fees. On top of that there are smaller programmes for scholarships (academically based only) £100k, and concessions for children of staff £200k.
Numbers below:
Thanks. So, a pretty small amount of turnover goes to charity.
That said, some charity shops have a pretty small amount of turnover going to charity. For some charities, I understand the presence on the high street is seen as being more important, because that reminder that you exist feeds through to more legacy donations, and that’s where the big income is.
I thought the numbers from a fairly middle income school without a super-rich clientele would be interesting. In my day a typical pupil would be from a professional family or one running a local business. It's not a school with an international brand or very wealthy hinterland, such as a Westminster Schools or a Down House.
Yep - the table on the "who gets the benefit in % vs family income" is below. I think the heavy emphasis on 75% to 100% subsidy for relatively low household incomes is probably a correct distribution.
I don't see how the % of turnover could realistically be much defensible at a much higher level - the "charitable donations" comparisons fails because fees do not get tax relief. These are out of parents' taxed income.
One of Starmer's risks is that he will just knock out the support for the ~50-80k of pupils in the independent sector who get support due to the last round of changes. It's a high cost to those children for ideological pandering.
Though there are bursaries and bursaries.
Full fees, fair enough. But 30% bursaries to families with 60k?
That looks rather more like the double glazing model, where the point of the list price is to have a massive discount applied.
It's a fairly peripheral point on the stats, as approx 95+% of bursaries (based on both tables I posted) here are going to families with "assessable incomes" (their term) under 55k.
One other thing I note is that it is not clear whether that is pre-tax or post-tax income. I can't help with that - no data.
Compare to tax breaks on child care - we give tax fe childcare for couples where each partner earns less than £100k pre-tax - a household pre-tax income of up to £200k.
Perhaps we could stop tax subsidised childcare for household incomes over £55k, or give tax breaks on independent education where both partners have *individual* incomes under £100k !
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
There's quite a difference between all three of those dudes. Irving was a Holocaust denier and Nazi-sympathiser, that's a bit more challenging than saying "I wouldn't shag her" on British TV news
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
Initially I thought Fox was a tragic figure: a minor celebrity who'd suffered some kind of mental breakdown / radicalization by visiting too many far-right websites. But, yes, you might be right and it's all just a cynical careerist ploy. I now suspect Fox is modelling himself on Milo Yiannopoulos, who first put the notion of the gender-pay-gap myth, which Fox mentioned during that broadcast, into the mainstream almost a decade ago.
I am pretty sure that is EXACTLY what Fox is doing, and quite deliberately - I also thought of the Milo Y comparison (in the end he was brought down by past "indiscretions", not anything he said in his guise as a sort-of shock jock)
See, I don't actually mind cruel, biting, even deeply insulting humour. But for fuck's sake, if you want to make people laugh you have to have a shred of originality. "Hur hur hur I wouldn't shag her" is weak weak weak. It's loser patter. How can you LOL at that?
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
There's quite a difference between all three of those dudes. Irving was a Holocaust denier and Nazi-sympathiser, that's a bit more challenging than saying "I wouldn't shag her" on British TV news
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
If it's liberal-Woke not to say "who'd shag that" about another human being then please go away and warm me the largest plate of tofu you can find.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I have never (after day 1) seen GBN on telly, but occasional snippets on sound suggest that its overriding characteristics are stupefying dullness and absence of content.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
The privately educated and the parents of children in private education are massively over-represented on PB.
No real point engaging in the debate here as the balance of opinion is massively distorted from the population as a whole.
That's true, but the debate does bring forth some entertaining defences of private schools. I've heard most of them before (many times) but occasionally you get a new one. Eg today's 'Eton is like a charity bookshop'. That's a cracker. I wouldn't have wanted to have just gone on in life never having heard that.
Well, it brings out different ideas about what the purpose of education is. If the main purpose is to promote equality, then yes, independent schools (and private universities) stand very much in the way of that purpose.
Yes, at heart this is a values thing. I have no problem with people saying, 'ok yes, private schools foster and reinforce class inequality, but I nevertheless look favourably on them for these other reasons xyz'. However it's rare that this happens. I guess because people are reluctant to admit that reducing inequality isn't one of their priorities. Not sure why. It's only one of many things that can be important to you. No crime if it isn't. So why pretend? Let's be honest and then the argument is much improved.
It would have been better to abolish private schools in the 1960s/70s and keep grammar schools rather than vice versa.
If they reformed the 11-plus to be a practical test of a child's hand-eye coordination and other aptitudes that would make them well-suited to an elite technical education for a skilled trade, then I might agree.
But the problem with grammar schools was that the secondary moderns were little more than dumping grounds for the children who had failed academically.
The story of grammar schools is at the centre of so much that is wrong with education in Britain and the way in which it is tied up with the lasting grip that class has on society.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
That’s a very fine line to tread though, and it’s difficult to be continually shocking without occasionally going completely off the deep end. One particular line might also be fine in one context, but not in another.
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
Yes, it's a very perilous path for a pundit. As Hopkins discovered. And there is always pressure on you to up the ante and be MORE provocative to keep the clicks coming
I wonder if any of these cheap shock pundits have thought of just assuming another identity each time they go too far?
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
Register office for Mrs Soup and me, followed by a slap-up lunch with our two witnesses. Lasted 40 years (and counting).
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
There's quite a difference between all three of those dudes. Irving was a Holocaust denier and Nazi-sympathiser, that's a bit more challenging than saying "I wouldn't shag her" on British TV news
Fox is arguably pursuing a sensible career strategy, albeit one with perils. He is hired to say this stuff. Who wants to tune in to Laurence Fox being "reasonable" or even Woke? We already have a trillion media people mouthing liberal-Woke platitudes
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
That’s a very fine line to tread though, and it’s difficult to be continually shocking without occasionally going completely off the deep end. One particular line might also be fine in one context, but not in another.
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
Yes, it's a very perilous path for a pundit. As Hopkins discovered. And there is always pressure on you to up the ante and be MORE provocative to keep the clicks coming
I wonder if any of these cheap shock pundits have thought of just assuming another identity each time they go too far?
See, I don't actually mind cruel, biting, even deeply insulting humour. But for fuck's sake, if you want to make people laugh you have to have a shred of originality. "Hur hur hur I wouldn't shag her" is weak weak weak. It's loser patter. How can you LOL at that?
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
That’s a very fine line to tread though, and it’s difficult to be continually shocking without occasionally going completely off the deep end. One particular line might also be fine in one context, but not in another.
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
Yes, it's a very perilous path for a pundit. As Hopkins discovered. And there is always pressure on you to up the ante and be MORE provocative to keep the clicks coming
What could be more provocative than saying the Holocaust was exaggerated?
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
Just like little boys want to be engine drivers I have a childish wish to possess one of those conveyor belt toasters you find in serve yourself breakfast unposh hotels such as Premierlodge and Travelinn.
H and S note: croissants frequently catch fire, causing death to millions, on these wonderful devices, which of course double up at quickie sunbeds for gnomes.
So after some brilliant matches last weekend, things look a bit quieter this weekend:
Wednesday
Uruguay v Namibia –play off for 4th/5th group place – Uruguay by 10
Thursday
Japan v Samoa – This is more interesting with either team still potentially going through to QF – I think Samoa by 10.
Friday
NZ v Italy – NZ will have a point to prove and should beat Italy by 30
Saturday
Fiji v Georgia – This will be a bone crunching game but with Fiji flair cutting through the Georgia defence, to confirm their second place in the group. Fiji by 15
Scotland v Romania – An easy win for Scotland by 30
Argentina v Chile – An easy win for Argentina by 20+
Sunday
South Africa v Tonga – Another one sided game – SA by 30
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally be a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……the entertainment value of the post match press conference from Eddie Jones would be pure box office!!
In a painful exchange, @NickFerrariLBC asks Tory Mayoral candidate Susan Hall about liking tweets praising Enoch Powell and describing the capital as 'Londonistan".
See, I don't actually mind cruel, biting, even deeply insulting humour. But for fuck's sake, if you want to make people laugh you have to have a shred of originality. "Hur hur hur I wouldn't shag her" is weak weak weak. It's loser patter. How can you LOL at that?
It wasn't the content it was oh that Laurence Fox is at it again, the whole charade was comical. What he actually said contained no humour whatsoever.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
Irving I get, but what cranky things have Hitchens and Wheatcroft been saying? (I don't recall reading either of them for years.)
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
Just like little boys want to be engine drivers I have a childish wish to possess one of those conveyor belt toasters you find in serve yourself breakfast unposh hotels such as Premierlodge and Travelinn.
H and S note: croissants frequently catch fire, causing death to millions, on these wonderful devices, which of course double up at quickie sunbeds for gnomes.
quickie sunbeds for gnomes?
That's something you don't want to observe while waiting for your breakfast
So after some brilliant matches last weekend, things look a bit quieter this weekend:
Wednesday
Uruguay v Namibia –play off for 4th/5th group place – Uruguay by 10
Thursday
Japan v Samoa – This is more interesting with either team still potentially going through to QF – I think Samoa by 10.
Friday
NZ v Italy – NZ will have a point to prove and should beat Italy by 30
Saturday
Fiji v Georgia – This will be a bone crunching game but with Fiji flair cutting through the Georgia defence, to confirm their second place in the group. Fiji by 15
Scotland v Romania – An easy win for Scotland by 30
Argentina v Chile – An easy win for Argentina by 20+
Sunday
South Africa v Tonga – Another one sided game – SA by 30
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally be a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……the entertainment value of the post match press conference from Eddie Jones would be pure box office!!
I fancy Uruguay to be wider and NZ to be narrower.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
In a painful exchange, @NickFerrariLBC asks Tory Mayoral candidate Susan Hall about liking tweets praising Enoch Powell and describing the capital as 'Londonistan".
"The mid- to late 1990s were the years when Britain's capital earned the sobriquet of "Londonistan," a title provided by French officials infuriated at the growing presence of Islamist radicals in London and the failure of British authorities to do anything about it. [...] Raids in France and Belgium had produced phone and fax numbers linked to the United Kingdom, and names of suspects were passed on. Some French officials believe that if more had been done by Britain at the time, the network behind the summer of 1995 bombings might have been broken up and the attacks prevented."
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
Yes! Even the ones that advertise having extra-large slots (oo-er) just mean that they're wide enough to take muffins and scones, not that they're long or deep enough to take a normal slice of bread.
Butter dishes, too. Finding one that takes a normal block of British butter is ridiculously hard too.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
Irving I get, but what cranky things have Hitchens and Wheatcroft been saying? (I don't recall reading either of them for years.)
Hitchens is pro-Putin, Wheatcroft wrote a polemic about Churchill which quoted Irving approvingly as well as claiming he was in the pay of Jewish interests.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
In terms of yelling in ears, you indicate the reason why this is fairly bad for GB News.
I agree it isn't the worst thing that has ever happened on TV. A guest (which Fox was on Wootton's show) misbehaved which does happen.
What Ofcom may well have problems with isn't what happened but what didn't - the robustness of the off-air process. So was a producer indeed yelling in Wootton's ear (i.e. did they spot the issue in real time)? What were they yelling? Why didn't Wootton deal with the issue there and then - lack of professionalism or training? Given he didn't shut it down quickly, should they have done so before the end of his show?
That systemic failure, rather than what was actually said is where fines can start to rack up. Bollocks do get dropped on live TV, but broadcasters start really having regulatory problems if there isn't a compliance process capable of picking them up fast when it happens.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
SMEG is your friend.
AGA and tennis racket required.
That is true, albeit some toast inevitably gets stuck to the racket. But if you are after a toaster then SMEG is the one.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
Not so, as I discovered in Currys. It must be admitted the toasters with long and wide slots had price tags to match.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
SMEG is your friend.
AGA and tennis racket required.
That is true, albeit some toast inevitably gets stuck to the racket. But if you are after a toaster then SMEG is the one.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
..and it hasn't been since 1868 at the latest. People who talk as if they're providing some great benefit to the wider population are being deeply disingenuous.
The contortions gone through on behalf of private schools are quite something.
'It's people who can afford it doing what they think is best for their kids, end of. And it's a free country.'
That's the essence of the argument for and it's a perfectly good one. No need to pretend they are a positive for society as a whole.
If they are genuine charities doing genuine good work, then they are. Objectively.
Oxfam campaign on left wing political issues. They advocate left wing taxes. They also spend a smaller percentage of revenue on good works than many charitable schools do.
I wouldn't target them for their politics though, as they are objectively a charity, just like schools objectively are.
If it's fair game to start picking on charities we dislike, I nominate Oxfam next.
Do you have figures to support this?
Oxfam GB report for 2021/22 says they spend £122m on humanitarian, £105m on development, £69m trading activities (cost of shops, goods sold in shops), £26m fundraising/legacies, £4m campaigning and £3m other.
Fox has gone down the same rabbit hole as people like Peter Hitchens, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, David Irving etc., who once had something interesting to say but are now just cranks.
Irving I get, but what cranky things have Hitchens and Wheatcroft been saying? (I don't recall reading either of them for years.)
Hitchens is pro-Putin, Wheatcroft wrote a polemic about Churchill which quoted Irving approvingly as well as claiming he was in the pay of Jewish interests.
Really? Hitchens was pretty pro-Milošević back in the day (at least in the sense that NATO were partly to blame) so I guess that fits.
A 15-year old girl was stabbed to death this morning. At risk of bad taste, you can't help wondering if this is the first murder investigation the Telegraph's reporter has seen.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
While Fox made jokes about cucks and incels, hardly suggesting that he takes male mental health seriously himself, and the moron presenter smirked all the way through.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
..and it hasn't been since 1868 at the latest. People who talk as if they're providing some great benefit to the wider population are being deeply disingenuous.
The contortions gone through on behalf of private schools are quite something.
'It's people who can afford it doing what they think is best for their kids, end of. And it's a free country.'
That's the essence of the argument for and it's a perfectly good one. No need to pretend they are a positive for society as a whole.
If they are genuine charities doing genuine good work, then they are. Objectively.
Oxfam campaign on left wing political issues. They advocate left wing taxes. They also spend a smaller percentage of revenue on good works than many charitable schools do.
I wouldn't target them for their politics though, as they are objectively a charity, just like schools objectively are.
If it's fair game to start picking on charities we dislike, I nominate Oxfam next.
Do you have figures to support this?
Oxfam GB report for 2021/22 says they spend £122m on humanitarian, £105m on development, £69m trading activities (cost of shops, goods sold in shops), £26m fundraising/legacies, £4m campaigning and £3m other.
I'd be surprised if there were private schools that spend ~70% of revenue on charitable activities.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
Yes! Even the ones that advertise having extra-large slots (oo-er) just mean that they're wide enough to take muffins and scones, not that they're long or deep enough to take a normal slice of bread.
Butter dishes, too. Finding one that takes a normal block of British butter is ridiculously hard too.
Where do the parties stand on these vital issues?
I've never had a problem with butter dishes, but .. er .. all mine are inherited.
In a painful exchange, @NickFerrariLBC asks Tory Mayoral candidate Susan Hall about liking tweets praising Enoch Powell and describing the capital as 'Londonistan".
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
..and it hasn't been since 1868 at the latest. People who talk as if they're providing some great benefit to the wider population are being deeply disingenuous.
The contortions gone through on behalf of private schools are quite something.
'It's people who can afford it doing what they think is best for their kids, end of. And it's a free country.'
That's the essence of the argument for and it's a perfectly good one. No need to pretend they are a positive for society as a whole.
If they are genuine charities doing genuine good work, then they are. Objectively.
Oxfam campaign on left wing political issues. They advocate left wing taxes. They also spend a smaller percentage of revenue on good works than many charitable schools do.
I wouldn't target them for their politics though, as they are objectively a charity, just like schools objectively are.
If it's fair game to start picking on charities we dislike, I nominate Oxfam next.
Do you have figures to support this?
Oxfam GB report for 2021/22 says they spend £122m on humanitarian, £105m on development, £69m trading activities (cost of shops, goods sold in shops), £26m fundraising/legacies, £4m campaigning and £3m other.
So after some brilliant matches last weekend, things look a bit quieter this weekend:
Wednesday
Uruguay v Namibia –play off for 4th/5th group place – Uruguay by 10
Thursday
Japan v Samoa – This is more interesting with either team still potentially going through to QF – I think Samoa by 10.
Friday
NZ v Italy – NZ will have a point to prove and should beat Italy by 30
Saturday
Fiji v Georgia – This will be a bone crunching game but with Fiji flair cutting through the Georgia defence, to confirm their second place in the group. Fiji by 15
Scotland v Romania – An easy win for Scotland by 30
Argentina v Chile – An easy win for Argentina by 20+
Sunday
South Africa v Tonga – Another one sided game – SA by 30
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally be a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……the entertainment value of the post match press conference from Eddie Jones would be pure box office!!
I fancy Uruguay to be wider and NZ to be narrower.
Uruguay by more than 10 Samoa by less than 10 or Japan win NZ by more than 30 Fiji by more than 15 Scotland by more than 30 Argentina by more than 20 South Africa by more than 30 Australia by more than 20.
The only one where I differ interestingly from you is Japan.
I should add that I have been bad at this so far this tournament!
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
I dunno
Someone like Fox is now the British equivalent of a US "shock jock". He can be relied on to say something provocative or shocking or even outrageous, which of course gets attention and views and clicks. Annoys many, amuses some
So now GB news are all over the news, which is exactly what they want; so they will probably suspend Fox but then forgive him, as he is good box office
The hard part for Fox is to remain provocative, without fatally crossing the line, like Katie Hopkins did
That’s a very fine line to tread though, and it’s difficult to be continually shocking without occasionally going completely off the deep end. One particular line might also be fine in one context, but not in another.
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
Yes, it's a very perilous path for a pundit. As Hopkins discovered. And there is always pressure on you to up the ante and be MORE provocative to keep the clicks coming
I wonder if any of these cheap shock pundits have thought of just assuming another identity each time they go too far?
If I have to endure another fucking chatbot or conversation with ignorant child speaking incomprehensible English I swear I will not be responsible for my actions.
FFS!! Why can't companies invest in proper customer service.
HP printers - useless. My vet for many years - now sacked because they stopped opening at weekends and have been unable to arrange vaccinations for 6 weeks now. They were recently bought out by a bigger company and the service has gone downhill and the nice vet who built up the practice left so have followed them. Vodafone - don't get me started. Direct Line Insurance - abysmal.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
Putinist shill doesn't understand why Putinist shill is Putinist shill.
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier". Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
If neither you nor I are attracted to many of those core values (or if many have nothing to do with the environment) then the party is surely failing on some fundamental level, Sandy.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response nust match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Generally those who are sniffy about national borders in the first place.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
He opposes any form of military assistance to Ukraine, argues that their former pro-Russian President was ousted by the EU and USA in a “coup” in 2014, alleges that tge expansion of NATO is to blame for Russian actions.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
Putinist shill doesn't understand why Putinist shill is Putinist shill.
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier". Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
No, it really doesn't. The majority of world nations are having nothing to do with the war in Ukraine. That doesn't make them Putinist shills, it just means that they've made a decision to prioritise other domestic or foreign policy objectives, rightly or wrongly. Calling everyone who opposes military support for Ukraine a 'Putinist shill' is a pernicious form of coercive identity politics, that suggests the real arguments for such support are too weak to stand alone.
If I have to endure another fucking chatbot or conversation with ignorant child speaking incomprehensible English I swear I will not be responsible for my actions.
FFS!! Why can't companies invest in proper customer service.
HP printers - useless. My vet for many years - now sacked because they stopped opening at weekends and have been unable to arrange vaccinations for 6 weeks now. They were recently bought out by a bigger company and the service has gone downhill and the nice vet who built up the practice left so have followed them. Vodafone - don't get me started. Direct Line Insurance - abysmal.
And so on.
🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Relatedly, I've been having problems with my Hive heating
Called them a week ago and spent half an hour doing my best with a woman in Customer Service whose accent was so thick - African? Middle Eastern? Greenlandic? - I could only understand about one word in two. So it was painful for both parties. She was surely doing her best, and I was entirely polite, but at the end the problem remained unsolved, because I couldn't understand what she was saying!
I've just called them again and got through to a bright, lucid Scottish guy, highly informed and knowledgeable, who talked me through it with crisp instructions and he's fixed my heating in 10 minutes
Why on earth would you employ someone in customer service/technical support who can barely speak intelligible English? Surely that is a minimum requirement
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
..and it hasn't been since 1868 at the latest. People who talk as if they're providing some great benefit to the wider population are being deeply disingenuous.
The contortions gone through on behalf of private schools are quite something.
'It's people who can afford it doing what they think is best for their kids, end of. And it's a free country.'
That's the essence of the argument for and it's a perfectly good one. No need to pretend they are a positive for society as a whole.
If they are genuine charities doing genuine good work, then they are. Objectively.
Oxfam campaign on left wing political issues. They advocate left wing taxes. They also spend a smaller percentage of revenue on good works than many charitable schools do.
I wouldn't target them for their politics though, as they are objectively a charity, just like schools objectively are.
If it's fair game to start picking on charities we dislike, I nominate Oxfam next.
Do you have figures to support this?
Oxfam GB report for 2021/22 says they spend £122m on humanitarian, £105m on development, £69m trading activities (cost of shops, goods sold in shops), £26m fundraising/legacies, £4m campaigning and £3m other.
I'd be surprised if there were private schools that spend ~70% of revenue on charitable activities.
A somewhat strained comparison. Categories are tricky.
Education itself is a charitable activity (unless the rules have changed?).
Drill down in the Oxfam stats and you will find that the actual contribution from trading activities is a fraction of that £69m and much of that is avoided tax, and that much of the "charitable activities" will be wages to UK-based staff, and so on.
Something towards £150m of Oxfam income is Government Grants and similar.
So after some brilliant matches last weekend, things look a bit quieter this weekend:
Wednesday
Uruguay v Namibia –play off for 4th/5th group place – Uruguay by 10
Thursday
Japan v Samoa – This is more interesting with either team still potentially going through to QF – I think Samoa by 10.
Friday
NZ v Italy – NZ will have a point to prove and should beat Italy by 30
Saturday
Fiji v Georgia – This will be a bone crunching game but with Fiji flair cutting through the Georgia defence, to confirm their second place in the group. Fiji by 15
Scotland v Romania – An easy win for Scotland by 30
Argentina v Chile – An easy win for Argentina by 20+
Sunday
South Africa v Tonga – Another one sided game – SA by 30
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally be a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……the entertainment value of the post match press conference from Eddie Jones would be pure box office!!
I fancy Uruguay to be wider and NZ to be narrower.
Uruguay by more than 10 Samoa by less than 10 or Japan win NZ by more than 30 Fiji by more than 15 Scotland by more than 30 Argentina by more than 20 South Africa by more than 30 Australia by more than 20.
The only one where I differ interestingly from you is Japan.
I should add that I have been bad at this so far this tournament!
My only flub this tournament was thinking Australia would beat Wales. I was far too focused on how bad Wales have been recently and not focused enough on Australia's woes.
If I have to endure another fucking chatbot or conversation with ignorant child speaking incomprehensible English I swear I will not be responsible for my actions.
FFS!! Why can't companies invest in proper customer service.
HP printers - useless. My vet for many years - now sacked because they stopped opening at weekends and have been unable to arrange vaccinations for 6 weeks now. They were recently bought out by a bigger company and the service has gone downhill and the nice vet who built up the practice left so have followed them. Vodafone - don't get me started. Direct Line Insurance - abysmal.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
I totally agree that too many couples are encouraged to spend rediculous amounts of money for a wedding. Many services charge double just for it "being a wedding".
On the other hand, these "Shock horror the average paid out for a ....." always use the mean to exaggerate the shock horror effect. Some weddings by the very rich are unbelievably expensive and the heavy tail brings the mean up considerably. I would expect a mean of 20K to be more like a median of 15K, but even that is still way too much.
TBF the disgusting wedding scam industry deserves all the low price competition it can get. Fair play to girls who want to look good (which is perfectly possible) without getting robbed by the world's most cynical industry.
I was rather shaken recently to come across details of the *average* cost of a wedding in the UK in the Graun. Must be 20K now allowing for inflation. And that's a very dispersed distribution when you think of the many who do it more or less DIY in the village hall (as my Somerset friends did for their daughter's wedding), or simply quietly in the registry office and celebrate at home ... the dress is 1.5K or so with inflation, I'd think - and again that is a mean, when some have home made dresses or use normal suits (or at least something that can be used again).
That's a very important role of charityy shops - to recycle at relatively economical prices. Hugely helpful when clearing my late father's very full house a while back, as we got rid of a lot of stuff which nonew of the family could use and would otherwise have been binned - in one case a lot of heavy pottery flower pots were sold before Mrs C returned with the next lot of stuff.
I totally agree that too many couples are encouraged to spend rediculous amounts of money for a wedding. Many services charge double just for it "being a wedding".
On the other hand, these "Shock horror the average paid out for a ....." always use the mean to exaggerate the shock horror effect. Some weddings by the very rich are unbelievably expensive and the heavy tail brings the mean up considerably. I would expect a mean of 20K to be more like a median of 15K, but even that is still way too much.
Quite so. But the rich are few, and the cheapskates/sensible couples are many, which helps ...
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
In fairness to Hitchens, he has held the view for years that wars in distant places that do not directly affect the UK are not relevant. With regards to the war in Ukraine, he is correct in thinking that the creep of pro-Nato and pro-EU sentiment right up to the Russian border was a contributory cause to the war. So he does have a point that is consistent with his world-view.
My view differs from his in the respect that you can't really blame Ukrainians et al for choosing to align with the West, and that regardless of cause and blame it is in our interest to assist UKR in their battle. So I understand and quite like him, but do not agree with him.
[Edit: you may also recall my rant that British politics is about assigning blame not achieving a goal. That plays a part here as well]
And Susan Hall hasn't been given a main slot at the Tory Party conference. Sort it out Tories.
I think Sadiq Khan would also welcome that
Well, yes, there is a factor that she could damage the Tories by doing a shit speech, or conversely that the Tories could tarnish her by association, and it's better for her to do a Ruth Davidson and not appear prominently Tory-esque, but I'm not sure either of these things is likely. I don't think anyone is unclear on Hall's Toryism, politically she is quite aligned with new Sunakism, and I imagine she'd go down quite well at the conference. They should sort it.
In 18 months time, who is going to be the most high profile Conservative in power? There’s a chance it will be Hall, although I suspect not. Andy Street probably.
And Susan Hall hasn't been given a main slot at the Tory Party conference. Sort it out Tories.
I think Sadiq Khan would also welcome that
Well, yes, there is a factor that she could damage the Tories by doing a shit speech, or conversely that the Tories could tarnish her by association, and it's better for her to do a Ruth Davidson and not appear prominently Tory-esque, but I'm not sure either of these things is likely. I don't think anyone is unclear on Hall's Toryism, politically she is quite aligned with new Sunakism, and I imagine she'd go down quite well at the conference. They should sort it.
In 18 months time, who is going to be the most high profile Conservative in power? There’s a chance it will be Hall, although I suspect not. Andy Street probably.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
While Fox made jokes about cucks and incels, hardly suggesting that he takes male mental health seriously himself, and the moron presenter smirked all the way through.
The presenters on GB News are a big part of their problem. You can actually express some seriously offensive views on TV without being in breach of the Broadcasting Code. But it needs context and robust challenge in proportion to the issue.
So GB News can (and does) have an agenda that is right wing (focussing on right wing preoccupations) and a guest list dominated opinionated right wingers. But the presenter and off-air team need to manage the challenge and context carefully.
Someone like Wootton (and many other hosts) smirk and gurn along with it all, with the closest they come to challenging a view being along the lines, "Now, Laurence, I'm technically required by Ofcom to say that some effing morons might quibble with you there..." That's where they run into difficulties as a channel - the presenters (and possibly the off-air team) are neither motivated to do what is necessary, nor intelligent or capable enough to do it.
Andrew Neil, in fairness to him, got this point - that you could have a right wing agenda on a UK regulated channel, but if you were robust and professional in managing it (i.e. you couldn't be Fox News) - but he was squeezed out early on.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Comments
Ultimately it’s up to the broadcaster though, they’re the ones who have to pay the OFCOM fines.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
Sozza.
One other thing I note is that it is not clear whether that is pre-tax or post-tax income. I can't help with that - no data.
Compare to tax breaks on child care - we give tax fe childcare for couples where each partner earns less than £100k pre-tax - a household pre-tax income of up to £200k.
Perhaps we could stop tax subsidised childcare for household incomes over £55k, or give tax breaks on independent education where both partners have *individual* incomes under £100k !
It is the balance Mr Starmer needs to strike.
Today’s line, is that it was the US and UK who planned the attack on the naval HQ.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/09/27/ukraine-russia-war-live-sokolov-black-sea-mod-offensive/
But for fuck's sake, if you want to make people laugh you have to have a shred of originality. "Hur hur hur I wouldn't shag her" is weak weak weak. It's loser patter. How can you LOL at that?
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
https://twitter.com/Teknium1/status/1706842988591374373
But the problem with grammar schools was that the secondary moderns were little more than dumping grounds for the children who had failed academically.
The story of grammar schools is at the centre of so much that is wrong with education in Britain and the way in which it is tied up with the lasting grip that class has on society.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone go there.
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
H and S note: croissants frequently catch fire, causing death to millions, on these wonderful devices, which of course double up at quickie sunbeds for gnomes.
Respectively Wealth Tax and Renationalise.
Wednesday
Uruguay v Namibia –play off for 4th/5th group place – Uruguay by 10
Thursday
Japan v Samoa – This is more interesting with either team still potentially going through to QF – I think Samoa by 10.
Friday
NZ v Italy – NZ will have a point to prove and should beat Italy by 30
Saturday
Fiji v Georgia – This will be a bone crunching game but with Fiji flair cutting through the Georgia defence, to confirm their second place in the group. Fiji by 15
Scotland v Romania – An easy win for Scotland by 30
Argentina v Chile – An easy win for Argentina by 20+
Sunday
South Africa v Tonga – Another one sided game – SA by 30
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally be a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……the entertainment value of the post match press conference from Eddie Jones would be pure box office!!
"I can't remember doing that."
"You can't *remember* doing that?"
In a painful exchange, @NickFerrariLBC asks Tory Mayoral candidate Susan Hall about liking tweets praising Enoch Powell and describing the capital as 'Londonistan".
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1706960619788730560
That's something you don't want to observe while waiting for your breakfast
"The mid- to late 1990s were the years when Britain's capital earned the sobriquet of "Londonistan," a title provided by French officials infuriated at the growing presence of Islamist radicals in London and the failure of British authorities to do anything about it. [...] Raids in France and Belgium had produced phone and fax numbers linked to the United Kingdom, and names of suspects were passed on. Some French officials believe that if more had been done by Britain at the time, the network behind the summer of 1995 bombings might have been broken up and the attacks prevented."
Butter dishes, too. Finding one that takes a normal block of British butter is ridiculously hard too.
Where do the parties stand on these vital issues?
I agree it isn't the worst thing that has ever happened on TV. A guest (which Fox was on Wootton's show) misbehaved which does happen.
What Ofcom may well have problems with isn't what happened but what didn't - the robustness of the off-air process. So was a producer indeed yelling in Wootton's ear (i.e. did they spot the issue in real time)? What were they yelling? Why didn't Wootton deal with the issue there and then - lack of professionalism or training? Given he didn't shut it down quickly, should they have done so before the end of his show?
That systemic failure, rather than what was actually said is where fines can start to rack up. Bollocks do get dropped on live TV, but broadcasters start really having regulatory problems if there isn't a compliance process capable of picking them up fast when it happens.
Though searching for Smeg toasters on Amazon found me this £30 alternative that looks like an own brand knock off that would do the same job, so might go for that: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Linsar-KY832-4-Toaster-Defrost-Functions/dp/B08DXFVLQH/ref=sr_1_1_sspa
Go and look at some fortifications, and other Byzantine artefacts.
Don't shout "Up the Kurds".
Forensic teams are scouring the scene, looking inside a white tent and on the number 60 bus which remains parked next to a bus stop.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/27/croydon-schoolgirl-stabbing-wellesley-road-whitgift/ (£££)
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/susan-hall-doesnt-feel-safe-walking-home-at-night/
The Green Party. Doesn't do what is says on the tin.
Makes you wonder how much was left over for them to spend on their customers healthcare given how much went to charitable activities instead?
What Oxfam report as humanitarian and what you or I think of as humanitarian might be two very different things.
Uruguay by more than 10
Samoa by less than 10 or Japan win
NZ by more than 30
Fiji by more than 15
Scotland by more than 30
Argentina by more than 20
South Africa by more than 30
Australia by more than 20.
The only one where I differ interestingly from you is Japan.
I should add that I have been bad at this so far this tournament!
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
@Sean_F @AndyJS
Greens ✅
FFS!! Why can't companies invest in proper customer service.
HP printers - useless.
My vet for many years - now sacked because they stopped opening at weekends and have been unable to arrange vaccinations for 6 weeks now. They were recently bought out by a bigger company and the service has gone downhill and the nice vet who built up the practice left so have followed them.
Vodafone - don't get me started.
Direct Line Insurance - abysmal.
And so on.
🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier".
Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-core-values/
If neither you nor I are attracted to many of those core values (or if many have nothing to do with the environment) then the party is surely failing on some fundamental level, Sandy.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Those are all pro-Putin talking points.
Called them a week ago and spent half an hour doing my best with a woman in Customer Service whose accent was so thick - African? Middle Eastern? Greenlandic? - I could only understand about one word in two. So it was painful for both parties. She was surely doing her best, and I was entirely polite, but at the end the problem remained unsolved, because I couldn't understand what she was saying!
I've just called them again and got through to a bright, lucid Scottish guy, highly informed and knowledgeable, who talked me through it with crisp instructions and he's fixed my heating in 10 minutes
Why on earth would you employ someone in customer service/technical support who can barely speak intelligible English? Surely that is a minimum requirement
Education itself is a charitable activity (unless the rules have changed?).
Drill down in the Oxfam stats and you will find that the actual contribution from trading activities is a fraction of that £69m and much of that is avoided tax, and that much of the "charitable activities" will be wages to UK-based staff, and so on.
Something towards £150m of Oxfam income is Government Grants and similar.
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/24/vets-now-fees-out-of-hours-bills
On the other hand, these "Shock horror the average paid out for a ....." always use the mean to exaggerate the shock horror effect. Some weddings by the very rich are unbelievably expensive and the heavy tail brings the mean up considerably. I would expect a mean of 20K to be more like a median of 15K, but even that is still way too much.
My view differs from his in the respect that you can't really blame Ukrainians et al for choosing to align with the West, and that regardless of cause and blame it is in our interest to assist UKR in their battle. So I understand and quite like him, but do not agree with him.
[Edit: you may also recall my rant that British politics is about assigning blame not achieving a goal. That plays a part here as well]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/19/tank-museum-dorset-social-media-fans/
/BJOfans
So GB News can (and does) have an agenda that is right wing (focussing on right wing preoccupations) and a guest list dominated opinionated right wingers. But the presenter and off-air team need to manage the challenge and context carefully.
Someone like Wootton (and many other hosts) smirk and gurn along with it all, with the closest they come to challenging a view being along the lines, "Now, Laurence, I'm technically required by Ofcom to say that some effing morons might quibble with you there..." That's where they run into difficulties as a channel - the presenters (and possibly the off-air team) are neither motivated to do what is necessary, nor intelligent or capable enough to do it.
Andrew Neil, in fairness to him, got this point - that you could have a right wing agenda on a UK regulated channel, but if you were robust and professional in managing it (i.e. you couldn't be Fox News) - but he was squeezed out early on.