Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
Labour councillors in Broxtowe, where a London based candidate was parachuted in for the election and local candidates barred, defect over the direction of the party.
Starmer and his team were ruthless in candidate selections for winnable seats. Barring good local candidates and imposing people, often with no like or little link to the seat.
They lost goodwill over that but if things go well they could ride it out.
It’s been a shambles so far. I can see this discontent only growing and many of these former SPAD/PPE Grad/NGO officials parachuted into these seats and getting nowhere on the ministerial ladder in a few years will become more and more discontented
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.
Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.
The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.
It is something. By no means enough, of course.
But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.
Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.
The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.
It is something. By no means enough, of course.
But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
Oh indeed.
But you are wrong about nothing being done about the victims. The police apparently, assiduously registered lots of them on the relevant databases as prostitutes. Which means, that if they have children, the children will deemed "at risk". And have a much higher chance of being taken into care.
I caught at Holocaust jokes, but that's a little bit sharp, isn't it?
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
Under English law, you can call yourself what you like. I'm not called John Lilburne and you're not called Malmesbury.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
People are complex creatures - true. But their fundamental beliefs colour everything they do.
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon probably believes in what he says - many such do. So when he gets angry about Rotherham, he is probably genuinely angry. It's just that he uses that anger as function of his evident racism. See his lack of anger at other abuse scandals, equally hidden, that involve non-immigrants.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
If he had cared about those children, he would not have tried to derail the trial of their attackers and when stopped complain endlessly about himself not them.
What is silly is not looking at the actions of the man and drawing conclusions from his behaviour and what he has said. Those show him to be utterly careless about the girls who suffered who were having to endure the hideous experience of giving evidence about what they had endured - in order to put their attackers in prison, something he was willing to stop if it gave him a bit of publicity as a so-called "martyr".
So on reflection I'll add "callous" and "selfish" to my description of him.
Labour councillors in Broxtowe, where a London based candidate was parachuted in for the election and local candidates barred, defect over the direction of the party.
That is perhaps partly about fear of potential Reform opposition. There's a lot of old industrial there, in addition to the Southern end which is partly leafy and suburban, but including some lower end places like Stapleford and Eastwood (where British Rail Engineering used to have a big works).
@Anabobazina thinks most of it should be in Nottingham !
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
Under English law, you can call yourself what you like. I'm not called John Lilburne and you're not called Malmesbury.
Good god. I'd always pictured you thus -
Online is one thing. Stage names in real life (apart from actors) are ridiculous.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
People are complex creatures - true. But their fundamental beliefs colour everything they do.
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon probably believes in what he says - many such do. So when he gets angry about Rotherham, he is probably genuinely angry. It's just that he uses that anger as function of his evident racism. See his lack of anger at other abuse scandals, equally hidden, that involve non-immigrants.
With Robinson it is more anti Islam than anything, he has formed some links with Hindu nationalists for example
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
I assume he took it because having a two syllable first name and three syllable second allows for the syllabic rhyme scheme:
A BC, BC, BC, BC, BC, BC DEF.
To be used rather than his real name which doesn't.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Well that is clearly not the case because:
a) I didn't just fail the 11 plus, I failed it convincingly because as I mentioned we were streamed based upon the results of the 11 plus and not only was my result not high enough to get into the grammar school, but I was no more than average of the failures because I was in stream 3 of 5 of the group that failed. That was a class expected to leave school without taking any exams. Not that I have any memory of taking an 11 plus.
b) After my O levels I went to the grammar school and was at a level where I was fast streamed with just 3 other grammar school boys out of the whole year and took an A level early.
So I had gone from being an average 11 plus failures (so well below average) to being at the very top of those that passed the 11 plus. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever. I might have been an extreme example but there were plenty more examples of boys who moved across and outperformed the grammar school boys and plenty from the grammar school who crashed and burned.
Selection at 11, particularly using an IQ test is plainly nuts.
PS I note also Kazuo Ishiguro has just got a new honour in addition to his knighthood and noble prize. He was at the same school as me and in my A level year and was not a spectacularly special student. Not fast tracked, however people just develop at different rates and should be streamed and set accordingly and not have some random judgement made at some random age.
So you certainly weren't in the bottom streams then and as you have said you were never as good at English as Maths so that probably dragged your average down a bit.
In any case as you said you went to grammar school after O Levels anyway and so ended up taking A levels early and at your top university from a grammar school sixth form regardless as most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 not just 11 as yours did too
Whoosh, missing the whole point:
a) This isn't just about me and lots of people suffer from selection at 11, namely those who are late starters and those who bloom early then fade. Also those that are gifted in one area and poor in another. Streaming and setting is far better.
b) I passed my English O level comfortably, just not with the top grade. I passed all my other exams (not just maths) with the top grade. I hardly think 'dragging my average down a little bit' explains why I was at a level that is below that to even be expected to take CSEs let alone O levels (so I was very, very much below average) and then being at the very very top of the grammar school. That can hardly be explained by my English not quite being at the top level. I was rubbish at 11 and soaring at 16. You also previously had the details from the IQ test I took as part of my interview for a job which is completely inconsistent with my 11 plus score.
You are trying to avoid the very very obvious conclusion that people develop at different rates. At 11 I was very much below average, by say 15 I was substantially above average. Same is true for many others and also the complete opposite for many.
And swapping schools half way through is traumatic for kids, whereas swapping streams or sets isn't.
a) No, for as I stated most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 too, indeed you got into grammar school yourself at 16.
b) As you said your English O Level was not top grade, so maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped
You are not reading what I am posting:
a) It is traumatic to change schools at 13 and most won't. Nobody did from my school even though they were given the option (I wasn't by the way, as I was still at the idiot level). At 16 I had no choice as A levels weren't available and many academic kids from my Secondary school dropped out at this stage sadly. It was what they were expected to do, so stuffed by the system. Many Grammar school boys also left after poor O levels, again let down by the system as they had been judged far too early at 11.
b) You have a fixation about my English O level because I said it wasn't at the top grade. Stop it. My English O level was perfectly good. I passed it easily. It was just that all my other passes were at the top grade. Are you seriously saying that someone with a decent English O level and top grades in all other subjects and who was fast tracked at A level by the Grammar school but failed his 11 plus spectacularly (OK I agree wasn't the worst, but I was well below average) was simply because my verbal reasoning let me down? Come on be sensible. I failed it by some margin, because I was well below average at 11.
This is all nonsense. I was clearly crap at 11 and rather good at 16. You are going through contortions to justify your view.
It is also telling that you say 'maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped'. This shows your lack of understanding of the average school kid and not those whose parents have higher expectations and tutor their kids. I say this because hope just didn't come into it. I have no memory of the 11 plus. I was a kid at school who would just go onto the next school in due course. I didn't even know what an 11 plus was. The fact that you say hope, means there is something to be achieved and therefore prepared for. That didn't exist for me not the kids I was at school with. That was for kids whose parents were ambitious for their children.
Yes so when as a late developer you did better at 16 you still got into grammar school after O level and onto a top university, so your not getting in at 11 didn't stop you getting in later.
It is still the case that only grammar schools really challenge private schools in terms of Oxbridge entry, and seeing their pupils become barristers, judges, city solicitors, surgeons and doctors, CEOs and board members of FTSE companies, Cabinet Ministers, permanent secretaries, Oscar winners etc ie most of the top professions and elite in this country. Yes entry is not easy to them but once in then the world can be your oyster, as it was for you too once you got in for sixth form
You are still not taking on board all that I say. Just picking out snippets. So here we go again:
a) This is not just about me. I am just an extreme example, although I did miss out on some of the academic stuff and got to do more practical stuff which was a complete waste because I am i) academic and ii) utterly incompetent at practical stuff.
But more importantly it is the impact on all the kids who missed out. I transferred because I was particularly gifted at maths, but there were many others who could have transferred and done very well who didn't. They had had 5 years of having ground into them that they were failures from the age of 11. On top of that there were Grammar school kids who passed the 11 plus, but who had blossomed too early and were now struggling and crashed out. There were lots of them. What about all those kids. Streaming and setting would have been much better for them.
b) Stating that only the grammar schools can challenge the private schools for Oxbridge is daft, because although selecting at 11 is daft it still will generally split the brighter kids from the less bright, even though there will be exceptions, so the percentages will be greater from Grammars than Comprehensives who haven't selected. However if the Grammars didn't exist the absolute numbers would not be greater. They would get there from the Comprehensives instead. We sent my son to a highly selective private school (yep I know the hypocrisy) because he is/was exceptionally gifted and we wanted him challenged as much as possible (I have previously mentioned I was teaching him A level maths stuff when he was still at primary school and he made the final selection for the GB Olympiad team in 3 subjects). It is worth noting though that the added value for that school was zero. Bright kids go in and bright kids come out. Same applies to Grammar schools but at the same time a number of kids are damaged as a consequence because they were put into boxes too early.
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.
Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.
The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.
It is something. By no means enough, of course.
But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
Kemi is absolutely right to demand a full public enquiry. We quite rightly had one when postmasters' lives and livelihoods were ruined by public servants whose actions bordered on criminal. The victims of the grooming gangs deserve just as much justice, and the enablers of this abuse must be made to answer for their behaviour, and the causes brought into the open and eliminated from the public sphere.
This initiative is aligned to Kemi's long-held public stances on culture, and the stress she places on public bodies that don't work. It isn't just necessary, it feels authentic to her and what she stands for.
Following this and other threads, it seems politics is getting more angry and Musk's interventions highly political and receiving quite a lot of attention
Indeed the question has to be asked just how much this damages Labour, and in a different way Farage with the vocal support of Musk who endorses Tommy Robinson and AFD in Germany
It seems Labour mps are becoming quite agitated and wanting more regulation of social media and X
The fact is, you cannot censor away opinions you fiercely refute but you need to address the issues by persuading the populace you have the correct answers
I fear it is only going to get worse once Trump is POTUS, and who actually rises or falls in the political debate and who are sidelined is wholly unpredictable
It seems nobody is happy and divisive discourse reigns, sadly
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
People are complex creatures - true. But their fundamental beliefs colour everything they do.
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon probably believes in what he says - many such do. So when he gets angry about Rotherham, he is probably genuinely angry. It's just that he uses that anger as function of his evident racism. See his lack of anger at other abuse scandals, equally hidden, that involve non-immigrants.
With Robinson it is more anti Islam than anything, he has formed some links with Hindu nationalists for example
An Indian chap I worked with visited Bristol, a long time back - to visit a cousin.
They wandered into a pub - and found out it was a bit of BNP clubhouse. But not to worry, the BNP locally had done some kind of fraternal deal with some Hindu nutters. People who'd been kicked out of the RSS for being a bit too much, apparently.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
But that's the point? If he cared about the victims rather than his own profile then he wouldn't have kept doing things with the potential to collapse a trial, after being repeatedly warned that's what he was doing and why. As plenty of other campaigners on the issue - including those who are scathing about the authorities, perpetrators and those who protected them - manage to.
Yes, people exist in shades of grey. But everything 'Robinson' - or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - has said or done since he first emerged fronting his 'EDL' group 15 years ago, indicates a grifter who has found that shifting onto whatever issue stokes anti-Muslim or immigrant tensions is rather lucrative.
Sometimes a snake oil salesman has to be called out on that, even if you personally like the taste of what he's selling.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
If he had cared about those children, he would not have tried to derail the trial of their attackers and when stopped complain endlessly about himself not them.
What is silly is not looking at the actions of the man and drawing conclusions from his behaviour and what he has said. Those show him to be utterly careless about the girls who suffered who were having to endure the hideous experience of giving evidence about what they had endured - in order to put their attackers in prison, something he was willing to stop if it gave him a bit of publicity as a so-called "martyr".
So on reflection I'll add "callous" and "selfish" to my description of him.
You can add what you like, but it must be said that he was a public figure raising awareness of this scandal when few others were. Whether his motives were pure or (as seems likely) not, that is an inescapable fact. If we don't want to give racists ammunition, we need to avoid future Rotherhams by aggressively prosecuting such crimes wherever they occur.
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.
Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.
The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.
It is something. By no means enough, of course.
But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
Kemi is absolutely right to demand a full public enquiry. We quite rightly had one when postmasters' lives and livelihoods were ruined by public servants whose actions bordered on criminal. The victims of the grooming gangs deserve just as much justice, and the enablers of this abuse must be made to answer for their behaviour, and the causes brought into the open and eliminated from the public sphere.
This initiative is aligned to Kemi's long-held public stances on culture, and the stress she places on public bodies that don't work. It isn't just necessary, it feels authentic to her and what she stands for.
Why is she demanding one now she is in opposition rather than any time over the last 14 years?
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
Under English law, you can call yourself what you like. I'm not called John Lilburne and you're not called Malmesbury.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Well that is clearly not the case because:
a) I didn't just fail the 11 plus, I failed it convincingly because as I mentioned we were streamed based upon the results of the 11 plus and not only was my result not high enough to get into the grammar school, but I was no more than average of the failures because I was in stream 3 of 5 of the group that failed. That was a class expected to leave school without taking any exams. Not that I have any memory of taking an 11 plus.
b) After my O levels I went to the grammar school and was at a level where I was fast streamed with just 3 other grammar school boys out of the whole year and took an A level early.
So I had gone from being an average 11 plus failures (so well below average) to being at the very top of those that passed the 11 plus. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever. I might have been an extreme example but there were plenty more examples of boys who moved across and outperformed the grammar school boys and plenty from the grammar school who crashed and burned.
Selection at 11, particularly using an IQ test is plainly nuts.
PS I note also Kazuo Ishiguro has just got a new honour in addition to his knighthood and noble prize. He was at the same school as me and in my A level year and was not a spectacularly special student. Not fast tracked, however people just develop at different rates and should be streamed and set accordingly and not have some random judgement made at some random age.
So you certainly weren't in the bottom streams then and as you have said you were never as good at English as Maths so that probably dragged your average down a bit.
In any case as you said you went to grammar school after O Levels anyway and so ended up taking A levels early and at your top university from a grammar school sixth form regardless as most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 not just 11 as yours did too
Whoosh, missing the whole point:
a) This isn't just about me and lots of people suffer from selection at 11, namely those who are late starters and those who bloom early then fade. Also those that are gifted in one area and poor in another. Streaming and setting is far better.
b) I passed my English O level comfortably, just not with the top grade. I passed all my other exams (not just maths) with the top grade. I hardly think 'dragging my average down a little bit' explains why I was at a level that is below that to even be expected to take CSEs let alone O levels (so I was very, very much below average) and then being at the very very top of the grammar school. That can hardly be explained by my English not quite being at the top level. I was rubbish at 11 and soaring at 16. You also previously had the details from the IQ test I took as part of my interview for a job which is completely inconsistent with my 11 plus score.
You are trying to avoid the very very obvious conclusion that people develop at different rates. At 11 I was very much below average, by say 15 I was substantially above average. Same is true for many others and also the complete opposite for many.
And swapping schools half way through is traumatic for kids, whereas swapping streams or sets isn't.
a) No, for as I stated most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 too, indeed you got into grammar school yourself at 16.
b) As you said your English O Level was not top grade, so maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped
You are not reading what I am posting:
a) It is traumatic to change schools at 13 and most won't. Nobody did from my school even though they were given the option (I wasn't by the way, as I was still at the idiot level). At 16 I had no choice as A levels weren't available and many academic kids from my Secondary school dropped out at this stage sadly. It was what they were expected to do, so stuffed by the system. Many Grammar school boys also left after poor O levels, again let down by the system as they had been judged far too early at 11.
b) You have a fixation about my English O level because I said it wasn't at the top grade. Stop it. My English O level was perfectly good. I passed it easily. It was just that all my other passes were at the top grade. Are you seriously saying that someone with a decent English O level and top grades in all other subjects and who was fast tracked at A level by the Grammar school but failed his 11 plus spectacularly (OK I agree wasn't the worst, but I was well below average) was simply because my verbal reasoning let me down? Come on be sensible. I failed it by some margin, because I was well below average at 11.
This is all nonsense. I was clearly crap at 11 and rather good at 16. You are going through contortions to justify your view.
It is also telling that you say 'maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped'. This shows your lack of understanding of the average school kid and not those whose parents have higher expectations and tutor their kids. I say this because hope just didn't come into it. I have no memory of the 11 plus. I was a kid at school who would just go onto the next school in due course. I didn't even know what an 11 plus was. The fact that you say hope, means there is something to be achieved and therefore prepared for. That didn't exist for me not the kids I was at school with. That was for kids whose parents were ambitious for their children.
Yes so when as a late developer you did better at 16 you still got into grammar school after O level and onto a top university, so your not getting in at 11 didn't stop you getting in later.
It is still the case that only grammar schools really challenge private schools in terms of Oxbridge entry, and seeing their pupils become barristers, judges, city solicitors, surgeons and doctors, CEOs and board members of FTSE companies, Cabinet Ministers, permanent secretaries, Oscar winners etc ie most of the top professions and elite in this country. Yes entry is not easy to them but once in then the world can be your oyster, as it was for you too once you got in for sixth form
You are still not taking on board all that I say. Just picking out snippets. So here we go again:
a) This is not just about me. I am just an extreme example, although I did miss out on some of the academic stuff and got to do more practical stuff which was a complete waste because I am i) academic and ii) utterly incompetent at practical stuff.
But more importantly it is the impact on all the kids who missed out. I transferred because I was particularly gifted at maths, but there were many others who could have transferred and done very well who didn't. They had had 5 years of having ground into them that they were failures from the age of 11. On top of that there were Grammar school kids who passed the 11 plus, but who had blossomed too early and were now struggling and crashed out. There were lots of them. What about all those kids. Streaming and setting would have been much better for them.
b) Stating that only the grammar schools can challenge the private schools for Oxbridge is daft, because although selecting at 11 is daft it still will generally split the brighter kids from the less bright, even though there will be exceptions, so the percentages will be greater from Grammars than Comprehensives who haven't selected. However if the Grammars didn't exist the absolute numbers would not be greater. They would get there from the Comprehensives instead. We sent my son to a highly selective private school (yep I know the hypocrisy) because he is/was exceptionally gifted and we wanted him challenged as much as possible (I have previously mentioned I was teaching him A level maths stuff when he was still at primary school and he made the final selection for the GB Olympiad team in 3 subjects). It is worth noting though that the added value for that school was zero. Bright kids go in and bright kids come out. Same applies to Grammar schools but at the same time a number of kids are damaged as a consequence because they were put into boxes too early.
Debating with @HYUFD is tiresome and eventually boring, because he never accepts he is wrong or even mistaken
I received private tuition to pass my 11+ in the early fifties, as did many of my friends and went into Grammar School and blossomed
Maybe the reason we suffer from poor politicians is that despite their so called intelligence, they seem to collectively demonstrate they are not as intelligent as they think by some distance, and the country would be in a far better place if we had less intellectual nonsense and more practical solutions to ordinary people's problems
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Well that is clearly not the case because:
a) I didn't just fail the 11 plus, I failed it convincingly because as I mentioned we were streamed based upon the results of the 11 plus and not only was my result not high enough to get into the grammar school, but I was no more than average of the failures because I was in stream 3 of 5 of the group that failed. That was a class expected to leave school without taking any exams. Not that I have any memory of taking an 11 plus.
b) After my O levels I went to the grammar school and was at a level where I was fast streamed with just 3 other grammar school boys out of the whole year and took an A level early.
So I had gone from being an average 11 plus failures (so well below average) to being at the very top of those that passed the 11 plus. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever. I might have been an extreme example but there were plenty more examples of boys who moved across and outperformed the grammar school boys and plenty from the grammar school who crashed and burned.
Selection at 11, particularly using an IQ test is plainly nuts.
PS I note also Kazuo Ishiguro has just got a new honour in addition to his knighthood and noble prize. He was at the same school as me and in my A level year and was not a spectacularly special student. Not fast tracked, however people just develop at different rates and should be streamed and set accordingly and not have some random judgement made at some random age.
So you certainly weren't in the bottom streams then and as you have said you were never as good at English as Maths so that probably dragged your average down a bit.
In any case as you said you went to grammar school after O Levels anyway and so ended up taking A levels early and at your top university from a grammar school sixth form regardless as most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 not just 11 as yours did too
Whoosh, missing the whole point:
a) This isn't just about me and lots of people suffer from selection at 11, namely those who are late starters and those who bloom early then fade. Also those that are gifted in one area and poor in another. Streaming and setting is far better.
b) I passed my English O level comfortably, just not with the top grade. I passed all my other exams (not just maths) with the top grade. I hardly think 'dragging my average down a little bit' explains why I was at a level that is below that to even be expected to take CSEs let alone O levels (so I was very, very much below average) and then being at the very very top of the grammar school. That can hardly be explained by my English not quite being at the top level. I was rubbish at 11 and soaring at 16. You also previously had the details from the IQ test I took as part of my interview for a job which is completely inconsistent with my 11 plus score.
You are trying to avoid the very very obvious conclusion that people develop at different rates. At 11 I was very much below average, by say 15 I was substantially above average. Same is true for many others and also the complete opposite for many.
And swapping schools half way through is traumatic for kids, whereas swapping streams or sets isn't.
a) No, for as I stated most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 too, indeed you got into grammar school yourself at 16.
b) As you said your English O Level was not top grade, so maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped
You are not reading what I am posting:
a) It is traumatic to change schools at 13 and most won't. Nobody did from my school even though they were given the option (I wasn't by the way, as I was still at the idiot level). At 16 I had no choice as A levels weren't available and many academic kids from my Secondary school dropped out at this stage sadly. It was what they were expected to do, so stuffed by the system. Many Grammar school boys also left after poor O levels, again let down by the system as they had been judged far too early at 11.
b) You have a fixation about my English O level because I said it wasn't at the top grade. Stop it. My English O level was perfectly good. I passed it easily. It was just that all my other passes were at the top grade. Are you seriously saying that someone with a decent English O level and top grades in all other subjects and who was fast tracked at A level by the Grammar school but failed his 11 plus spectacularly (OK I agree wasn't the worst, but I was well below average) was simply because my verbal reasoning let me down? Come on be sensible. I failed it by some margin, because I was well below average at 11.
This is all nonsense. I was clearly crap at 11 and rather good at 16. You are going through contortions to justify your view.
It is also telling that you say 'maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped'. This shows your lack of understanding of the average school kid and not those whose parents have higher expectations and tutor their kids. I say this because hope just didn't come into it. I have no memory of the 11 plus. I was a kid at school who would just go onto the next school in due course. I didn't even know what an 11 plus was. The fact that you say hope, means there is something to be achieved and therefore prepared for. That didn't exist for me not the kids I was at school with. That was for kids whose parents were ambitious for their children.
Yes so when as a late developer you did better at 16 you still got into grammar school after O level and onto a top university, so your not getting in at 11 didn't stop you getting in later.
It is still the case that only grammar schools really challenge private schools in terms of Oxbridge entry, and seeing their pupils become barristers, judges, city solicitors, surgeons and doctors, CEOs and board members of FTSE companies, Cabinet Ministers, permanent secretaries, Oscar winners etc ie most of the top professions and elite in this country. Yes entry is not easy to them but once in then the world can be your oyster, as it was for you too once you got in for sixth form
You are still not taking on board all that I say. Just picking out snippets. So here we go again:
a) This is not just about me. I am just an extreme example, although I did miss out on some of the academic stuff and got to do more practical stuff which was a complete waste because I am i) academic and ii) utterly incompetent at practical stuff.
But more importantly it is the impact on all the kids who missed out. I transferred because I was particularly gifted at maths, but there were many others who could have transferred and done very well who didn't. They had had 5 years of having ground into them that they were failures from the age of 11. On top of that there were Grammar school kids who passed the 11 plus, but who had blossomed too early and were now struggling and crashed out. There were lots of them. What about all those kids. Streaming and setting would have been much better for them.
b) Stating that only the grammar schools can challenge the private schools for Oxbridge is daft, because although selecting at 11 is daft it still will generally split the brighter kids from the less bright, even though there will be exceptions, so the percentages will be greater from Grammars than Comprehensives who haven't selected. However if the Grammars didn't exist the absolute numbers would not be greater. They would get there from the Comprehensives instead. We sent my son to a highly selective private school (yep I know the hypocrisy) because he is/was exceptionally gifted and we wanted him challenged as much as possible (I have previously mentioned I was teaching him A level maths stuff when he was still at primary school and he made the final selection for the GB Olympiad team in 3 subjects). It is worth noting though that the added value for that school was zero. Bright kids go in and bright kids come out. Same applies to Grammar schools but at the same time a number of kids are damaged as a consequence because they were put into boxes too early.
We had more judges, barristers, surgeons, Oscar winners, top journalists and Prime Ministers who were state educated when we had more grammar schools than we do now.
Even Starmer went to a private school which had been a grammar school when he joined it. I note you too sent your son to a private school not the local comp when he would almost certainly have got into a grammar school as you did ultimately
If you are going to tax private education, then tax university education at the same time. Almost as if this is more about ideology than raising money or fairness.
Meanwhile in Broxtowe, 20 Labour councillors have quit the party over Starmer:
Taxing university education would only piss off the same people who are complaining about VAT on private school fees, i.e. the people who pay for their kid's tuition fees themselves.
For the rest of us, 20% on a figure we'll never pay off anyway is irrelevant.
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
State schools cost what they cost per pupil because lots of pupils go to them. If fewer people go, they will cost more per pupil than currently. There are economies of scale.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
You don't see any dangers in promoting a violent fraudster, who constantly lies and whipped up the riots earlier this year?
No because it makes people like you unhappy. If the establishment against him then I'm all for Musk. I loathe all of you and can't wait to see you all removed.
That seems aggressively mean-spirited. Removed from what? I have no role in or working with government.
Is the establishment against Musk? I think Musk is the establishment. He's very rich, owns his own social media company and is working for the incoming US administration. If that's not the establishment, what is?
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
You don't see any dangers in promoting a violent fraudster, who constantly lies and whipped up the riots earlier this year?
No because it makes people like you unhappy. If the establishment against him then I'm all for Musk. I loathe all of you and can't wait to see you all removed.
That seems aggressively mean-spirited. Removed from what? I have no role in or working with government.
Is the establishment against Musk? I think Musk is the establishment. He's very rich, owns his own social media company and is working for the incoming US administration. If that's not the establishment, what is?
The "establishment" is "people I don't like". See also: "woke".
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
Yes, but it's now the same he's known by. IANAL, but AIUI if you are widely known by a name, UK law considers that to be your name. You don't need to do a deed poll.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.
Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
I quite enjoy seeing this topic debated because it brings out like no other the hypocrisy of the English middle classes.
All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.
If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.
Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.
A prize fir the bitchiest post of the day. And your history is what exactly?
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Around here, there just aren't the places in state schools to accommodate the influx. People are going to end up at schools miles away because they can no longer get into their local school. The people whom it will most negatively impact are not the people it is trying to punish.
The zealots don't give a jot about the casualties , their dogma sustains them.
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.
Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.
The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.
It is something. By no means enough, of course.
But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
We definitely dont need an enquiry....what we need is a police investigation and where people whether policeman, councillors or local government people or priests etc have covered up sexual abuse of young people then they need to be tried in a court of law for at least perversion of justice.
I quite enjoy seeing this topic debated because it brings out like no other the hypocrisy of the English middle classes.
All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.
If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.
Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.
A prize fir the bitchiest post of the day. And your history is what exactly?
A mistake to react in that way but the post does step into whataboutery. Topic 1 - is private education a luxury good and are private schools businesses masquerading as charities? I'd argue yes to both, the charitable status Labour backed off from because it was too difficult AIUI. Topic 2 - buying a house in a school catchment area, it was ever thus but the point of school inspections is to try to bring all school standards up and secondary schools generally have large catchments Topic 3 - social care, though really dementia care, the hope was for a social insurance system. Looked almost achievable but cross-party consensus was abandoned in favour of political advantage. Very unlikely to happen now as all options are politically toxic.
Comments
They lost goodwill over that but if things go well they could ride it out.
It’s been a shambles so far. I can see this discontent only growing and many of these former SPAD/PPE Grad/NGO officials parachuted into these seats and getting nowhere on the ministerial ladder in a few years will become more and more discontented
The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.
Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.
The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.
It is something. By no means enough, of course.
But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLXMPyZDEKA
(He limits himself to the legalities.)
But you are wrong about nothing being done about the victims. The police apparently, assiduously registered lots of them on the relevant databases as prostitutes. Which means, that if they have children, the children will deemed "at risk". And have a much higher chance of being taken into care.
I caught at Holocaust jokes, but that's a little bit sharp, isn't it?
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon probably believes in what he says - many such do. So when he gets angry about Rotherham, he is probably genuinely angry. It's just that he uses that anger as function of his evident racism. See his lack of anger at other abuse scandals, equally hidden, that involve non-immigrants.
What is silly is not looking at the actions of the man and drawing conclusions from his behaviour and what he has said. Those show him to be utterly careless about the girls who suffered who were having to endure the hideous experience of giving evidence about what they had endured - in order to put their attackers in prison, something he was willing to stop if it gave him a bit of publicity as a so-called "martyr".
So on reflection I'll add "callous" and "selfish" to my description of him.
@Anabobazina thinks most of it should be in Nottingham !
Online is one thing. Stage names in real life (apart from actors) are ridiculous.
EDIT: Those boots scream @TSE, don't they?
https://www.thetimes.com/article/how-the-far-right-fanned-the-flames-in-leicester-sljw8zjht
A BC, BC,
BC, BC, BC, BC DEF.
To be used rather than his real name which doesn't.
a) This is not just about me. I am just an extreme example, although I did miss out on some of the academic stuff and got to do more practical stuff which was a complete waste because I am i) academic and ii) utterly incompetent at practical stuff.
But more importantly it is the impact on all the kids who missed out. I transferred because I was particularly gifted at maths, but there were many others who could have transferred and done very well who didn't. They had had 5 years of having ground into them that they were failures from the age of 11. On top of that there were Grammar school kids who passed the 11 plus, but who had blossomed too early and were now struggling and crashed out. There were lots of them. What about all those kids. Streaming and setting would have been much better for them.
b) Stating that only the grammar schools can challenge the private schools for Oxbridge is daft, because although selecting at 11 is daft it still will generally split the brighter kids from the less bright, even though there will be exceptions, so the percentages will be greater from Grammars than Comprehensives who haven't selected. However if the Grammars didn't exist the absolute numbers would not be greater. They would get there from the Comprehensives instead. We sent my son to a highly selective private school (yep I know the hypocrisy) because he is/was exceptionally gifted and we wanted him challenged as much as possible (I have previously mentioned I was teaching him A level maths stuff when he was still at primary school and he made the final selection for the GB Olympiad team in 3 subjects). It is worth noting though that the added value for that school was zero. Bright kids go in and bright kids come out. Same applies to Grammar schools but at the same time a number of kids are damaged as a consequence because they were put into boxes too early.
This initiative is aligned to Kemi's long-held public stances on culture, and the stress she places on public bodies that don't work. It isn't just necessary, it feels authentic to her and what she stands for.
Indeed the question has to be asked just how much this damages Labour, and in a different way Farage with the vocal support of Musk who endorses Tommy Robinson and AFD in Germany
It seems Labour mps are becoming quite agitated and wanting more regulation of social media and X
The fact is, you cannot censor away opinions you fiercely refute but you need to address the issues by persuading the populace you have the correct answers
I fear it is only going to get worse once Trump is POTUS, and who actually rises or falls in the political debate and who are sidelined is wholly unpredictable
It seems nobody is happy and divisive discourse reigns, sadly
Good afternoon/evening, everyone
They wandered into a pub - and found out it was a bit of BNP clubhouse. But not to worry, the BNP locally had done some kind of fraternal deal with some Hindu nutters. People who'd been kicked out of the RSS for being a bit too much, apparently.
Aryan unite or something?
Yes, people exist in shades of grey. But everything 'Robinson' - or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon - has said or done since he first emerged fronting his 'EDL' group 15 years ago, indicates a grifter who has found that shifting onto whatever issue stokes anti-Muslim or immigrant tensions is rather lucrative.
Sometimes a snake oil salesman has to be called out on that, even if you personally like the taste of what he's selling.
NEW THREAD
I received private tuition to pass my 11+ in the early fifties, as did many of my friends and went into Grammar School and blossomed
Maybe the reason we suffer from poor politicians is that despite their so called intelligence, they seem to collectively demonstrate they are not as intelligent as they think by some distance, and the country would be in a far better place if we had less intellectual nonsense and more practical solutions to ordinary people's problems
Even Starmer went to a private school which had been a grammar school when he joined it. I note you too sent your son to a private school not the local comp when he would almost certainly have got into a grammar school as you did ultimately
For the rest of us, 20% on a figure we'll never pay off anyway is irrelevant.
If fewer people go, they will cost more per pupil than currently. There are economies of scale.
Is the establishment against Musk? I think Musk is the establishment. He's very rich, owns his own social media company and is working for the incoming US administration. If that's not the establishment, what is?
Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
Topic 1 - is private education a luxury good and are private schools businesses masquerading as charities?
I'd argue yes to both, the charitable status Labour backed off from because it was too difficult AIUI.
Topic 2 - buying a house in a school catchment area, it was ever thus but the point of school inspections is to try to bring all school standards up and secondary schools generally have large catchments
Topic 3 - social care, though really dementia care, the hope was for a social insurance system. Looked almost achievable but cross-party consensus was abandoned in favour of political advantage. Very unlikely to happen now as all options are politically toxic.