This kind of Labour infighting that you allude to above is just depressing and destructive.
It all boils down to the poor selection of candidates. Corbyn is definitely unelectable as too is Kendell for different reasons. Kendall is just too light weight, Corbyn's politics are unpalatable.
That reduces us to Burnham and Cooper- who have just not risen to the challenge, and have no real affection or power base in the party.
And so we have this really ugly leadership race with a set of broadly unelectable candidates squabbling to who'll lead a party for a fractious three years before the putsch arrives and Labour pick someone with electoral appeal for 2020.
Interesting and astute comment, thank you. One question though - do you have any idea who the Labour party could find to have 'electoral appeal' in 2020 in that scenario? None of the candidates I have seen mooted look like a strong contenders.
David Miliband and Alan Johnson polled best with yougov Johnson could be Howard to Miliband's Cameron
Howard was on the front bench at the time, hammering away at Gordon Brown, had loyally supported Duncan Smith right to the end, and was in his early sixties. Johnson would be on the back benches doing TV interviews saying how rubbish Labour were, and approaching 70. David Miliband is not even in Parliament. Neither are serious contenders to replace Corbyn even in the direct emergency.
So I say again - where would this leader come from? The situation will be made worse if Corbyn appoints only left-wingers to his shadow cabinet - because none of them have any talent or electoral appeal at all!
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
@Speedy I don't believe all female Labour politicians believe men are all sexist b*stards. I think Cooper's message was more that if Labour are a party on equality, then they shouldn't seek to have the leadership completely white and male-dominated. Where I disagree with her, is her reliance on the symbolism of being Labour's first female leader. I'd also say Gillard did receive her fair share of sexist abuse. As for Thatcher; a woman shouldn't have to emulate gender roles of being a house-wife in order to get elected. That in itself is a form of sexism.
It's the perceived image, when Cooper makes a speech in which she says than only women can be radical is that creating a positive image or a negative one?
And Thacher's campaign to portray her as a housewife that would clean up the mess Labour left in 1979 was very successful.
Corporal punishment in schools is one subject that does divide the age groups. I suspect most oldies (30 plus) are easy-going about it, and they older they get, the more sympathetic they are.
At the time, I was probably against it, but I was generally against any discipline. And usually the boundaries were consistent. Thus far and no further but at least, we knew.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Agreed. It is perfectly possible to control an entire school of children very effectively without even the threat, let alone the actuality, of violence or other physical chastisement. Given that it is perfectly possible to do it, there is no need to allow for the possibility of that threat in the first place.
Exactly. At my school discipline was effort quite well, and there were very little issues.
Sometimes I think some of the older generation have nothing but negative things to say about my generation.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
They have been replaced by unruly kids who think defenceless kids are things to beat up. We have simply replaced a minor form of barbarism with a more major one.
Somehow, I doubt previously [in the era of corporeal punishment] that you didn't have unruly kids who beat up defenceless kids. Both are quite barbaric, not minor vs major.
Any abuse that Kendall receives is utterly justified, the individual is the worst type of politician and a pretty poor excuse for a human being.
No, abuse is never justified, especially of colleagues. Full stop.
And that's why people such as Liz Kendall act in a disgraceful manner. The consequences of such action has been made socially unacceptable. You aren't allowed to call a despicable scumbag a despicable scumbag despite that being a factually accurate description.
The best example of this is with the bulk of people in social deprivation. The reason they are poor is because they are thick and/or lazy. Societally this description is completely unacceptable. They are "vulnerable" and need "support". It's a ridiculous state of affairs.
It seems bizarre but in general, people don't actually observe the way that Newspeak of 1984 is now thoroughly extant in the United Kingdom.
We used to get the strap if we couldn't recite the answer to the catechism questions assigned for homework. One strap on day one. Double that the next day if you still didn't know the answer. Four the next day. Eight the next day. I never saw it get beyond eight. These were Irish Christian Brothers.
Wasn't it Dave Allen who said that the Irish Catholic religious orders, including the nuns, beat the fear of God into him, so he became an atheist?
That's what happened to me. I can still answer the catechism questions after 60 years ("Who made you? etc) but I've definitely lost the faith.
''Sometimes I think some of the older generation have nothing but negative things to say about my generation. ''
What rubbish. There is good and bad in every generation. And that is the point. Getting rid of corporal punishment is not much more than a bullies charter. IE a worse form of barbarism.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
But it shouldn't even be there as a deterrent. I was one of the hard working head down types, and for me it would have created an environment of fear.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
They have been replaced by unruly kids who think defenceless kids are things to beat up. We have simply replaced a minor form of barbarism with a more major one.
I accept this is anecdotal evidence - that is, hardly evidence at all - but as someone who went to school when corporal punishment was not permitted, I don't recognise that depiction of the hellscape that is not permitting teachers to hit children.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Agreed. It is perfectly possible to control an entire school of children very effectively without even the threat, let alone the actuality, of violence or other physical chastisement. Given that it is perfectly possible to do it, there is no need to allow for the possibility of that threat in the first place.
I think Macchiavelli summed it up well:-
"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with........and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."
@Speedy I don't believe all female Labour politicians believe men are all sexist b*stards. I think Cooper's message was more that if Labour are a party on equality, then they shouldn't seek to have the leadership completely white and male-dominated. Where I disagree with her, is her reliance on the symbolism of being Labour's first female leader. I'd also say Gillard did receive her fair share of sexist abuse. As for Thatcher; a woman shouldn't have to emulate gender roles of being a house-wife in order to get elected. That in itself is a form of sexism.
It's the perceived image, when Cooper makes a speech in which she says than only women can be radical is that creating a positive image or a negative one?
And Thacher's campaign to portray her as a housewife that would clean up the mess Labour left in 1979 was very successful.
Again, I never said her campaign wasn't successful: I said that women should not have to emulate gender roles in order to be seen as credible and get elected.
On Cooper, I don't agree with her on the point you've made.
My mother was brought up as a very strict Catholic - she rebelled on her 18th birthday by buying a bra and painting her toe/fingernails red. And expected to be struck by lightning for it.
She continued the nail painting ritual every Sunday until she died. She detested organised religions as repressive, mindwashing and in her case cruel.
We used to get the strap if we couldn't recite the answer to the catechism questions assigned for homework. One strap on day one. Double that the next day if you still didn't know the answer. Four the next day. Eight the next day. I never saw it get beyond eight. These were Irish Christian Brothers.
Wasn't it Dave Allen who said that the Irish Catholic religious orders, including the nuns, beat the fear of God into him, so he became an atheist?
That's what happened to me. I can still answer the catechism questions after 60 years ("Who made you? etc) but I've definitely lost the faith.
Corporal punishment in schools is one subject that does divide the age groups. I suspect most oldies (30 plus) are easy-going about it, and they older they get, the more sympathetic they are.
At the time, I was probably against it, but I was generally against any discipline. And usually the boundaries were consistent. Thus far and no further but at least, we knew.
Strict boundaries, consistently enforced are what is needed. My first secondary school had this, there were very few classes disrupted and generally bullying etc. were not a problem. The difference with the next school I attended was stark.
"Since announcing his campaign in late June, Donald Trump has quickly leapt to the top of the Republican field, leading recent polls nationally, in Iowa and in New Hampshire. And now, for the first time in CNN/ORC polling, his gains among the Republican Party have boosted him enough to be competitive in the general election."
''Sometimes I think some of the older generation have nothing but negative things to say about my generation. ''
What rubbish. There is good and bad in every generation. And that is the point. Getting rid of corporal punishment is not much more than a bullies charter. IE a worse form of barbarism.
I agree there is a good and bad in every generation; that's my whole point. That it feels like the only time young people are talked about, it's to criticise them.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
How? The best teachers at controlling a class I ever saw didn't even need to raise their voices, and there was no fear of being hit as it was not allowed. So it can be done without that symbolism and fear. As such, it should be the expectation it can be done without them. I am, for once, entirely confused by this idea of how having it or not somehow protects the quieter types. What does hitting one child have to do with preventing children bullying each other? Unless we think the only way to stop that is to hit people, which is untrue.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
But it shouldn't even be there as a deterrent. I was one of the hard working head down types, and for me it would have created an environment of fear.
Honestly, it really wasn't anything to fear - unless you were an unruly sort. I think the majority of 'canings' when I was at school were a swift tap on the back of the hand. It was the shame and worry involved of getting your name read out in assembly that was the real detterent. My name was never read out in assembly, thankfully !
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
But it shouldn't even be there as a deterrent. I was one of the hard working head down types, and for me it would have created an environment of fear.
The educational attainments in Singapore, Taiwan, China etc might suggest otherwise
I can't wait to see Diane Abbott as Shad Home Sec myself. And John McDonnell as SCoE.
Who could be SFSec?
The three great offices of State...
Corbyn would surely do that himself. After all, we all know he talks endlessly to people to bring about ends to wars in Israel, Ireland, Iraq, that he is brilliant at meeting people, and he is not sullied by meeting those who are rather unsavoury in the interests of peace and justice. Who could better that record?
"The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted making up comments from supposed "benefit claimants" that appeared in a leaflet about sanctions.
The leaflet, which has now been withdrawn, included positive example stories from people who claimed to have interacted with the sanctions system.
In one example, titled "Sarah's story", a jobseeker is quoted as being "really pleased" after a cut to her benefits supposedly encouraged her to re-draft her CV.
"It's going to help me when I'm ready to go back to work," the fabricated quote reads.
Another, by a benefit claimant supposedly called "Zac", details the sanctions system working well.
But in response to a freedom of information request by the Welfare Weekly website the DWP said the quotes were not actually real cases and that the photos were not of real claimants
'The photos used are stock photos and along with the names do not belong to real claimants. The stories are for illustrative purposes only', the department said."
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
How? The best teachers at controlling a class I ever saw didn't even need to raise their voices, and there was no fear of being hit as it was not allowed. So it can be done without that symbolism and fear. As such, it should be the expectation it can be done without them. I am, for once, entirely confused by this idea of how having it or not somehow protects the quieter types. What does hitting one child have to do with preventing children bullying each other? Unless we think the only way to stop that is to hit people, which is untrue.
Only the headmaster could administer the cane where I went !
Any abuse that Kendall receives is utterly justified, the individual is the worst type of politician and a pretty poor excuse for a human being.
No, abuse is never justified, especially of colleagues. Full stop.
And that's why people such as Liz Kendall act in a disgraceful manner. The consequences of such action has been made socially unacceptable. You aren't allowed to call a despicable scumbag a despicable scumbag despite that being a factually accurate description.
The best example of this is with the bulk of people in social deprivation. The reason they are poor is because they are thick and/or lazy. Societally this description is completely unacceptable. They are "vulnerable" and need "support". It's a ridiculous state of affairs.
It seems bizarre but in general, people don't actually observe the way that Newspeak of 1984 is now thoroughly extant in the United Kingdom.
Nah. We see it on PB - people who call each other things like that aren't worth bothering with, even when they're right. It just gets in the way of any kind of sensible thinking, because we're too busy getting worked up about each other to bother to engage with the issue. SeanT is at least often funny when he's trash-talking, but that's partly because he goes deliberately OTT - if someone calls you a scumbag it's boring and mildly annoying, but if he calls you the 10000-year-preserved scumbag of Genghis Khan's horse's dung, it's quite hard to take offence.
O/T - the Greek rescue package has sailed through the Bundestag.by 453-113. About 60 CDU/CSU members voted no, but the party leadership isn't much bothered.
I know this is off -topic but would be grateful for the indulgence of Board members. I believe there are several here from a teaching background and many who perhaps can relate to this. I have posted elsewhere on a subject about which I have strong feelings. Would welcome any views
‘Corporal punishment in state schools has been unlawful since September 1987. What most people do not realise is that much of the unofficial discipline that went on years before that was also unlawful. Whilst getting the cane or the slipper was ok if carried out within reason , it was never lawful to hit pupils with board rubbers/chalk etc – or to cuff them on the head or ear. The latter was never ‘authorised corporal punishment’ and when it happened it fell under the legal heading of ‘assault’.Even back in the 1950s a pupil hit across the head by a board rubber or teachers hand could have walked into a police station and reported the incident with a view to taking proceedings. Alas most pupils and parents were ignorant of the law, and teachers invariably relied on that to get away with effectively abusing their positions! We have been appalled in recent years to read the stories of sexual abuse by celebrities such as Jimmy Saville- Rolf Harris – Stuart Hall and others relating to incidents dating back several decades. Now when schoolteachers went beyond the law – throwing board rubbers for example – they were guilty of physical abuse.. Such an offence is much less serious than sexual abuse but ,nevertheless, I would point out that the possibility of seeking legal redress is still there – particularly if a group of ex-pupils can get together to amass evidence. Should a conviction be obtained the sentence imposed would obviously reflect the less serious nature of the offence as compared with Messrs Saville and Harris. If some of you still feel a strong sense of injustice – I would! – why not seek to expose these people and shock the living daylights out of them? Remember the saying ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’.
It wouldn't work today anyway. My parents would automatically have agreed with the teacher; nowadays, they wouldn't.
But we were taught to ask an adult for help if we got lost, I doubt that's still the case.
I don't know how old you are but in the 70s I am pretty certain it was "ask a policeman" (not that there were ever any in my village). Stranger Danger and Charlie Says adverts are still quite memorable.
Mr Herdson - you make good points about the election of Thatcher. Its true she gained an impetus because she stood whilst others like Whitelaw remained loyal to the leader. However the parliamentary electorate must be considered sophisticated to quite a degree and they would have assessed her by her campaign. The real hero was Whitelaw who lost but still served loyally and to his best ability and ensured all wings of the party kept in step. This included in opposition which was when the party formulated the policies which the country needed.
''Somehow, I doubt previously [in the era of corporeal punishment] that you didn't have unruly kids who beat up defenceless kids.''
In the old days the defenceless kid could take comfort in the fact the bully was going to get some of his own medicine.
Often, one caning was enough, because bullies are really cowards.
Your system = rule by bully.
Really? I've spoken to people who were bullied in the corporeal punishment era, and that never happened. They just kept on getting bullied.
I was bullied in that era, the joys of having a lisp as a teenager. One break time a group of about 8-10 kids stood in a circle around me and kicked me. Eventually a teacher broke it up. The students in question got called out in assembly the following morning and sent off for "6 of the best" with the headmaster, and were later told to apologies... funnily enough it stopped after that.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
But it shouldn't even be there as a deterrent. I was one of the hard working head down types, and for me it would have created an environment of fear.
The educational attainments in Singapore, Taiwan, China etc might suggest otherwise
How well someone does doesn't really dispute whether the environment created was one of fear, though. What about other education systems - such as those in Northern Europe - who do well - where as far as I'm aware, corporeal punishment is not used? Personally, I wouldn't like to emulate any the countries you mention - one of which leads parents to have a mental breakdown in case their child has a vagina instead of a penis.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
But it shouldn't even be there as a deterrent. I was one of the hard working head down types, and for me it would have created an environment of fear.
Honestly, it really wasn't anything to fear - unless you were an unruly sort. I think the majority of 'canings' when I was at school were a swift tap on the back of the hand. It was the shame and worry involved of getting your name read out in assembly that was the real detterent. My name was never read out in assembly, thankfully !
The innocent shall have nothing to fear? A sentiment to livein fear of.
"The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted making up comments from supposed "benefit claimants" that appeared in a leaflet about sanctions.
The leaflet, which has now been withdrawn, included positive example stories from people who claimed to have interacted with the sanctions system.
But in response to a freedom of information request by the Welfare Weekly website the DWP said the quotes were not actually real cases and that the photos were not of real claimants
'The photos used are stock photos and along with the names do not belong to real claimants. The stories are for illustrative purposes only', the department said."
''Somehow, I doubt previously [in the era of corporeal punishment] that you didn't have unruly kids who beat up defenceless kids.''
In the old days the defenceless kid could take comfort in the fact the bully was going to get some of his own medicine.
Often, one caning was enough, because bullies are really cowards.
Your system = rule by bully.
Really? I've spoken to people who were bullied in the corporeal punishment era, and that never happened. They just kept on getting bullied.
I got really severely bullied at school one year. Year 9, so when some of us were going few puberty and some, including me, were basically just children still.
It went on for a year or so, into Year 10. Even though I was in the rugby team and no longer tiny.
One day it came to a head, I was in a quiet part of school and it had kicked off again, but much more physically. I had something sharp in my pocket and went for the ringleader, drawing quite a bit of blood.
As he'd been bullying me and others so much, he was too afraid to go to the school about it and I got left alone for the remainder.
I'm not saying what I did was the best or only way out of it but no teacher was going to sort it out.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
How? The best teachers at controlling a class I ever saw didn't even need to raise their voices, and there was no fear of being hit as it was not allowed. So it can be done without that symbolism and fear. As such, it should be the expectation it can be done without them. I am, for once, entirely confused by this idea of how having it or not somehow protects the quieter types. What does hitting one child have to do with preventing children bullying each other? Unless we think the only way to stop that is to hit people, which is untrue.
Only the headmaster could administer the cane where I went !
I think my school chose not to use it, I certainly was not an angel and don't remember ever getting the tawse. It was only banned in public schools in 1987 and was still available in private schools till 1999. No idea why my school didn't use it.
This kind of Labour infighting that you allude to above is just depressing and destructive.
It all boils down to the poor selection of candidates. Corbyn is definitely unelectable as too is Kendell for different reasons. Kendall is just too light weight, Corbyn's politics are unpalatable.
That reduces us to Burnham and Cooper- who have just not risen to the challenge, and have no real affection or power base in the party.
And so we have this really ugly leadership race with a set of broadly unelectable candidates squabbling to who'll lead a party for a fractious three years before the putsch arrives and Labour pick someone with electoral appeal for 2020.
Interesting and astute comment, thank you. One question though - do you have any idea who the Labour party could find to have 'electoral appeal' in 2020 in that scenario? None of the candidates I have seen mooted look like a strong contenders.
David Miliband and Alan Johnson polled best with yougov Johnson could be Howard to Miliband's Cameron
Howard was on the front bench at the time, hammering away at Gordon Brown, had loyally supported Duncan Smith right to the end, and was in his early sixties. Johnson would be on the back benches doing TV interviews saying how rubbish Labour were, and approaching 70. David Miliband is not even in Parliament. Neither are serious contenders to replace Corbyn even in the direct emergency.
So I say again - where would this leader come from? The situation will be made worse if Corbyn appoints only left-wingers to his shadow cabinet - because none of them have any talent or electoral appeal at all!
Johnson would be the only unity candidate with support from all wings and actually polls better than Howard did
''Somehow, I doubt previously [in the era of corporeal punishment] that you didn't have unruly kids who beat up defenceless kids.''
In the old days the defenceless kid could take comfort in the fact the bully was going to get some of his own medicine.
Often, one caning was enough, because bullies are really cowards.
Your system = rule by bully.
I was pretty badly bullied, beaten up at school. The bullies never got their comeuppance, because they were smart enough to do it when teachers weren't around.
Has violence against teachers gone up, down or stayed the same since CP was banned?
correlation ≠ causation
Well it surely does on occasion? Do you know the answer anyway?
Agreed, that when only one thing has changed between two models you can attribute the cause of the divergence to that change.
In this case, other changes besides corporal punishment (or lack thereof) can offer counter explanations.
I don't know the answer any more than you do, however as I argued downthread; I suspect that all that is required is strict boundaries, consistently enforced.
One way of seeking redress against a particularly sadistic teacher might be to launch a publicity campaign - but it's not difficult to imagine that could start a libel action.
So all in all, I would advise you that whatever grievance you have against your former teachers, it doesn't seem likely that you would get very far with it, and it might lead to a lot more mud being thrown at you which would be unpleasant for you.
Out of curiosity, what was the source of your earlier quotation?
EDIT - Some of the other comments rather go to prove my point!
Let me first make it clear that I do not personally have an axe to grind here in that I never suffered anything beyond being hit over the head with a text book! Nevertheless I have always felt strongly about people in power and authority who abuse their positions - whether politicians - judges- clergymen - policemen - or schoolteachers and believe they should be held to account. The various sexual abuse cases relating to celebrities - many dating back decades - has brought to my mind the fact that many teachers DID abuse their positions by punishing pupils in unauthorised ways. I am not being retrospective here - but seeking to apply the law as it then stood. It particularly offends my sense of justice that boys - sometimes girls too - were punished for often minor misdemeanours or breaches of school rules by teachers who then proceeded to break the law of the land and to commit a criminal offence It raises the question as to who was most in need of correction! I was not aware that a six month limit applies to criminal offences. Most people to this day remain totally unaware that when such things happened to them they were actually victims of criminal behaviour. I have a sister-in-law who taught at a Primary School. She has referred on a number of occasions to what happened at her school following the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools in Autumn 1987. Her Headmaster continued to plimsoll 10 and 11 year old boys until the early 1990s and justified so doing on the basis that 'the parents agreed with him.' Those lads would now be in their mid to late 30s, and I would be surprised if they did not have a cause of action should they wish to press the matter.
This kind of Labour infighting that you allude to above is just depressing and destructive.
It all boils down to the poor selection of candidates. Corbyn is definitely unelectable as too is Kendell for different reasons. Kendall is just too light weight, Corbyn's politics are unpalatable.
That reduces us to Burnham and Cooper- who have just not risen to the challenge, and have no real affection or power base in the party.
And so we have this really ugly leadership race with a set of broadly unelectable candidates squabbling to who'll lead a party for a fractious three years before the putsch arrives and Labour pick someone with electoral appeal for 2020.
Interesting and astute comment, thank you. One question though - do you have any idea who the Labour party could find to have 'electoral appeal' in 2020 in that scenario? None of the candidates I have seen mooted look like a strong contenders.
David Miliband and Alan Johnson polled best with yougov Johnson could be Howard to Miliband's Cameron
Howard was on the front bench at the time, hammering away at Gordon Brown, had loyally supported Duncan Smith right to the end, and was in his early sixties. Johnson would be on the back benches doing TV interviews saying how rubbish Labour were, and approaching 70. David Miliband is not even in Parliament. Neither are serious contenders to replace Corbyn even in the direct emergency.
So I say again - where would this leader come from? The situation will be made worse if Corbyn appoints only left-wingers to his shadow cabinet - because none of them have any talent or electoral appeal at all!
Johnson would be the only unity candidate with support from all wings and actually polls better than Howard did
I don't doubt that for a second. I was pointing out that compared to Howard, he's not a plausible candidate. He'd be closer to a Peter Lilley figure.
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
But it shouldn't even be there as a deterrent. I was one of the hard working head down types, and for me it would have created an environment of fear.
The educational attainments in Singapore, Taiwan, China etc might suggest otherwise
How well someone does doesn't really dispute whether the environment created was one of fear, though. What about other education systems - such as those in Northern Europe - who do well - where as far as I'm aware, corporeal punishment is not used? Personally, I wouldn't like to emulate any the countries you mention - one of which leads parents to have a mental breakdown in case their child has a vagina instead of a penis.
With the exception of China, which is to do with the single child policy, your lack of awareness does you credit
I think Ydoethur mentioned some pupils playing using the class hamster as a football. But, I have a far worse story than that,
Moat Mount School in Mill Hill had a vile reputation. Some teenagers held a mock trial of an unpopular boy, and sentenced him to death. They then proceeded to hang him, from ropes in the gym. Fortunately, a teacher intervened and rescued the victim.
''Somehow, I doubt previously [in the era of corporeal punishment] that you didn't have unruly kids who beat up defenceless kids.''
In the old days the defenceless kid could take comfort in the fact the bully was going to get some of his own medicine.
Often, one caning was enough, because bullies are really cowards.
Your system = rule by bully.
Really? I've spoken to people who were bullied in the corporeal punishment era, and that never happened. They just kept on getting bullied.
I got really severely bullied at school one year. Year 9, so when some of us were going few puberty and some, including me, were basically just children still.
It went on for a year or so, into Year 10. Even though I was in the rugby team and no longer tiny.
One day it came to a head, I was in a quiet part of school and it had kicked off again, but much more physically. I had something sharp in my pocket and went for the ringleader, drawing quite a bit of blood.
As he'd been bullying me and others so much, he was too afraid to go to the school about it and I got left alone for the remainder.
I'm not saying what I did was the best or only way out of it but no teacher was going to sort it out.
I can understand what you did. I've suffered bullying as well - from about the age of 5, to the age of 14. Intially it was verbal, but then it it become both verbal and physical.
"Remember the saying ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’."
Not very Christian. Anyway, I was caned, on the palm of the hand, in about 1959. It stung at the time but didn't leave a mark. The Head was probably born around 1900 so what do you suggest? We could always dig him up, but he was a kind old soul and I deserved it.
I was not aware that a six month limit applies to criminal offences. Most people to this day remain totally unaware that when such things happened to them they were actually victims of criminal behaviour. I have a sister-in-law who taught at a Primary School. She has referred on a number of occasions to what happened at her school following the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools in Autumn 1987. Her Headmaster continued to plimsoll 10 and 11 year old boys until the early 1990s and justified so doing on the basis that 'the parents agreed with him.' Those lads would now be in their mid to late 30s, and I would be surprised if they did not have a cause of action should they wish to press the matter.
I would have thought - again, I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong - that the only way to do it after this lapse of time would be to bring a private action under the civil law. However, I doubt very much if they would get a payout unless it could be proved that they had suffered ongoing physical or mental health problems as a direct result.
With regard to your earlier point re. abuse of power - leaving aside any other consideration, I doubt if you would persuade any judge or jury that what happened was 'abusing their position' as a teacher. More likely, they would take the view that these were disciplinary matters that were being dealt with mistakenly, but in good faith. Therefore, it seems unlikely a criminal conviction would have been possible, then or now, unless you could prove that they were deliberately and maliciously administering these punishments for their own gratification or as part of a campaign of organised bullying, which would be near-impossible to prove.
So I think whoever wrote that probably doesn't have much idea of what they're saying, and I was interested to see @CD13 say it resembled a spoof advert. Maybe check the source again?
The US hasn't annexed any non-neighbouring countries in living memory either.
Your argument is also an odd one. It is like saying:
"Person A is worse than Person B because Person A raped someone. Person B never raped anyone." "Well that should be ignored because Person B never needed to rape someone, as he already had a willing girlfriend."
In addition, the government of Ukraine was not overthrown. The Ukrainian president was removed by the Ukrainian parliament. If the Canadian parliament removed the Governor General from office, and then had a fresh election to put in a pro-Chinese Govenor General, the US wouldn't invade.
A slightly creepy analogy, but to continue it and be more accurate, you would be saying:
-'Person A is worse than Person B because Person A raped their next door neighbour, and Person B hasn't raped their next door neighbour for a long time'
And me replying:
-'Firstly, the location of the rape is totally irrelevant because Person B has been raping and pillaging everyone else with impunity ever since they came of age, to a far greater extent than Person A could even dream of, and secondly, their next door neighbour is their slave, so absolutely no need to risk breaking the law to get what they want.'
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
I think Ydoethur mentioned some pupils playing using the class hamster as a football. But, I have a far worse story than that,
Moat Mount School in Mill Hill had a vile reputation. Some teenagers held a mock trial of an unpopular boy, and sentenced him to death. They then proceeded to hang him, from ropes in the gym. Fortunately, a teacher intervened and rescued the victim.
Well, fortunately I've never had anything like that to deal with. The worst I've had is being hit with a chair. Then there was that time a Year 10 or 11 stamped on a small boy's head - but fortunately the deputy head was passing at the time, so he dealt with it while I was on crowd control.
An actual hanging is, well...*genuinely lost for words.*
"Stupid, but I'm not actually outraged for some reason. Marking the things as illustrative would have made it not matter at all."
Likewise.
Photos of actors alongside made up quotes used by the state to justify a controversial policy... Ah lovely
Advertisers do this far more though. What about those sun-drenched adverts for Flora with all that candid wobbly 'hand held' footage of old people getting their collesterol down - they're all actors. (and the product is utterly foul and could not be worse for your health)
Yes - but people liked him, and he was a senior backbencher untainted by recent cock-ups. That's why I suggested him as a parallel.
Remember, Johnson will command support from the right and centre, but not from the disgruntled left who will be absolutely fuming, under the scenario you've outlined.
No, it's a legal thing. We had it in the police too re ASBOs - we had to be really careful not to use images to name/shame that were disproportionate to the crimes committed.
Very frustrating - but that's where we are nowadays. If you're convicted of a crime of benefit cheating, unless it's absolutely huge - DWP would be open to legal threats along the same lines. It's simply sensible.
No, it's a legal thing. We had it in the police too re ASBOs - we had to be really careful not to use images to name/shame that were disproportionate to the crimes committed.
Very frustrating - but that's where we are nowadays. If you're convicted of a crime of benefit cheating, unless it's absolutely huge - DWP would be open to legal threats along the same lines. It's simply sensible.
"Stupid, but I'm not actually outraged for some reason. Marking the things as illustrative would have made it not matter at all."
Likewise.
Photos of actors alongside made up quotes used by the state to justify a controversial policy... Ah lovely
Advertisers do this far more though. What about those sun-drenched adverts for Flora with all that candid wobbly 'hand held' footage of old people getting their collesterol down - they're all actors. (and the product is utterly foul and could not be worse for your health)
We can choose not to buy those products though.
I think state using propaganda and lies is morally worse than commercial advertising
My mother was also hit by a chair and knocked over - she was in her 50s and 8st.
Her school employed what could only be described as bouncers to stop things getting out of control. She was the archetypal teacher who could turn you into a pillar of salt with a thin-lipped glare of disapproval.
I think Ydoethur mentioned some pupils playing using the class hamster as a football. But, I have a far worse story than that,
Moat Mount School in Mill Hill had a vile reputation. Some teenagers held a mock trial of an unpopular boy, and sentenced him to death. They then proceeded to hang him, from ropes in the gym. Fortunately, a teacher intervened and rescued the victim.
Well, fortunately I've never had anything like that to deal with. The worst I've had is being hit with a chair. Then there was that time a Year 10 or 11 stamped on a small boy's head - but fortunately the deputy head was passing at the time, so he dealt with it while I was on crowd control.
An actual hanging is, well...*genuinely lost for words.*
I was not aware that a six month limit applies to criminal offences. Most people to this day remain totally unaware that when such things happened to them they were actually victims of criminal behaviour. I have a sister-in-law who taught at a Primary School. She has referred on a number of occasions to what happened at her school following the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools in Autumn 1987. Her Headmaster continued to plimsoll 10 and 11 year old boys until the early 1990s and justified so doing on the basis that 'the parents agreed with him.' Those lads would now be in their mid to late 30s, and I would be surprised if they did not have a cause of action should they wish to press the matter.
I would have thought - again, I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong - that the only way to do it after this lapse of time would be to bring a private action under the civil law. However, I doubt very much if they would get a payout unless it could be proved that they had suffered ongoing physical or mental health problems as a direct result.
With regard to your earlier point re. abuse of power - leaving aside any other consideration, I doubt if you would persuade any judge or jury that what happened was 'abusing their position' as a teacher. More likely, they would take the view that these were disciplinary matters that were being dealt with mistakenly, but in good faith. Therefore, it seems unlikely a criminal conviction would have been possible, then or now, unless you could prove that they were deliberately and maliciously administering these punishments for their own gratification or as part of a campaign of organised bullying, which would be near-impossible to prove.
So I think whoever wrote that probably doesn't have much idea of what they're saying, and I was interested to see @CD13 say it resembled a spoof advert. Maybe check the source again?
With respect a Headmaster could hardly claim that he was unaware that the law had changed in Autumn 1987! I rather suspect that if confronted with the accusation - which he openly admitted to his staff - that he would confess his guilt and so avoid any need for a drawn out trial.The evidence is pretty overwhelming and I cannot believe that former members of staff would be likely to lie under oath to protect him should he deny it.
No, it's a legal thing. We had it in the police too re ASBOs - we had to be really careful not to use images to name/shame that were disproportionate to the crimes committed.
Very frustrating - but that's where we are nowadays. If you're convicted of a crime of benefit cheating, unless it's absolutely huge - DWP would be open to legal threats along the same lines. It's simply sensible.
My mother was also hit by a chair and knocked over - she was in her 50s and 8st.
Her school employed what could only be described as bouncers to stop things getting out of control. She was the archetypal teacher who could turn you into a pillar of salt with a thin-lipped glare of disapproval.
I think Ydoethur mentioned some pupils playing using the class hamster as a football. But, I have a far worse story than that,
Moat Mount School in Mill Hill had a vile reputation. Some teenagers held a mock trial of an unpopular boy, and sentenced him to death. They then proceeded to hang him, from ropes in the gym. Fortunately, a teacher intervened and rescued the victim.
Well, fortunately I've never had anything like that to deal with. The worst I've had is being hit with a chair. Then there was that time a Year 10 or 11 stamped on a small boy's head - but fortunately the deputy head was passing at the time, so he dealt with it while I was on crowd control.
An actual hanging is, well...*genuinely lost for words.*
We had a resident police officer at the school in question. He was about as much use as a Communist entrepreneur, but he was there. We also had lots of Local Authority bigwigs running around telling us how wonderful the children were and it was all our fault that the school was a disaster zone. If we were all sacked, things would improve. Strangely, that didn't help a lot either.
Corporal punishment in schools is one subject that does divide the age groups. I suspect most oldies (30 plus) are easy-going about it, and they older they get, the more sympathetic they are.
At the time, I was probably against it, but I was generally against any discipline. And usually the boundaries were consistent. Thus far and no further but at least, we knew.
I taught for 34 years without the need for physical punishment. I had the ability to be effective in the classroom without it. I claim this as no great merit on my part as it seemed to be there more or less from day 1. The only thing I'd say is that the main cause of indiscipline in schools lies with poor parenting at home and poor teachers staying in a job they are unsuited for. Unfortunately both of these are very difficult problems to overcome
"Remember the saying ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’."
Not very Christian. Anyway, I was caned, on the palm of the hand, in about 1959. It stung at the time but didn't leave a mark. The Head was probably born around 1900 so what do you suggest? We could always dig him up, but he was a kind old soul and I deserved it.
I would not suggest there was anything wrong re- your caning - that was lawful at the time. That was not my point at all!
With respect a Headmaster could hardly claim that he was unaware that the law had changed in Autumn 1987! I rather suspect that if confronted with the accusation - which he openly admitted to his staff - that he would confess his guilt and so avoid any need for a drawn out trial.The evidence is pretty overwhelming and I cannot believe that former members of staff would be likely to lie under oath to protect him should he deny it.
Yes - sorry - those were two separate points. I appreciate that could have been clearer. The first paragraph was on the Head you mentioned - I fully agree you are right, that is clearly criminal behaviour, but I doubt if a prosecution could be launched after this lapse of time.
The second one was because you described the pre-1987 offences as an abuse of power (board rubbers, cuffing etc.). I was explaining why I thought it unlikely the courts would agree, rendering any prosecution rather pointless.
''Somehow, I doubt previously [in the era of corporeal punishment] that you didn't have unruly kids who beat up defenceless kids.''
In the old days the defenceless kid could take comfort in the fact the bully was going to get some of his own medicine.
Often, one caning was enough, because bullies are really cowards.
Your system = rule by bully.
I was pretty badly bullied, beaten up at school. The bullies never got their comeuppance, because they were smart enough to do it when teachers weren't around.
Same here.
One of the best experiences I have ever had was when I ended up interviewing a former bully of mine for a job in my current workplace. The look on his face when he saw me sitting at the conference table was priceless. Suffice it to say he did not get the job.
"Stupid, but I'm not actually outraged for some reason. Marking the things as illustrative would have made it not matter at all."
Likewise.
Photos of actors alongside made up quotes used by the state to justify a controversial policy... Ah lovely
Advertisers do this far more though. What about those sun-drenched adverts for Flora with all that candid wobbly 'hand held' footage of old people getting their collesterol down - they're all actors. (and the product is utterly foul and could not be worse for your health)
We can choose not to buy those products though.
I think state using propaganda and lies is morally worse than commercial advertising
Almost certainly.
However, if the true guidelines are that (for example) people's benefits are NOT to be docked for missing an appointment due to a medical situation, isn't the fake testimonial simply an illustration of the facts?
Corbyn gor v angry on ch 4 news a while back iirc lost it with perfectly reasonable questioning..
I'm not surprised. I have a good friend complete with the Corbyn cap who is of a lefty (real Liberal Party) persuasion who is a top bloke but on certain issues close to the lefty heart can get extremely animated very quickly.
I think Ydoethur mentioned some pupils playing using the class hamster as a football. But, I have a far worse story than that,
Moat Mount School in Mill Hill had a vile reputation. Some teenagers held a mock trial of an unpopular boy, and sentenced him to death. They then proceeded to hang him, from ropes in the gym. Fortunately, a teacher intervened and rescued the victim.
Well, fortunately I've never had anything like that to deal with. The worst I've had is being hit with a chair. Then there was that time a Year 10 or 11 stamped on a small boy's head - but fortunately the deputy head was passing at the time, so he dealt with it while I was on crowd control.
An actual hanging is, well...*genuinely lost for words.*
A teacher at my school threw an overhead projector at a pupil, who was sitting in the second row. I think it could safely be said that the teacher had anger issues.
It could be a tough place, and my parents paid handsomely for me too attend ...
My mother strongly approved the bouncers. Just what the little thugs needed in her opinion. Her views on teaching unions, BEd newspeak and the *claptrap* that LEAs talked is unrepeatable.
My mother was also hit by a chair and knocked over - she was in her 50s and 8st.
Her school employed what could only be described as bouncers to stop things getting out of control. She was the archetypal teacher who could turn you into a pillar of salt with a thin-lipped glare of disapproval.
I think Ydoethur mentioned some pupils playing using the class hamster as a football. But, I have a far worse story than that,
Moat Mount School in Mill Hill had a vile reputation. Some teenagers held a mock trial of an unpopular boy, and sentenced him to death. They then proceeded to hang him, from ropes in the gym. Fortunately, a teacher intervened and rescued the victim.
Well, fortunately I've never had anything like that to deal with. The worst I've had is being hit with a chair. Then there was that time a Year 10 or 11 stamped on a small boy's head - but fortunately the deputy head was passing at the time, so he dealt with it while I was on crowd control.
An actual hanging is, well...*genuinely lost for words.*
We had a resident police officer at the school in question. He was about as much use as a Communist entrepreneur, but he was there. We also had lots of Local Authority bigwigs running around telling us how wonderful the children were and it was all our fault that the school was a disaster zone. If we were all sacked, things would improve. Strangely, that didn't help a lot either.
I taught for 34 years without the need for physical punishment. I had the ability to be effective in the classroom without it. I claim this as no great merit on my part as it seemed to be there more or less from day 1. The only thing I'd say is that the main cause of indiscipline in schools lies with poor parenting at home and poor teachers staying in a job they are unsuited for. Unfortunately both of these are very difficult problems to overcome
This is a tangential point, but I actually think it's getting more difficult to deal with the second problem, and has been ever since OFSTED came along. Because OFSTED reports on schools, not teachers (and now doesn't even give us individual feedback) removing an ineffectual teacher has become almost impossible. Instead, there is a siege mentality among colleagues, who complain about the weaker members of staff among themselves but will close ranks instantly if an outsider joins in, because they are afraid of being implicated in any criticism of the school. The management might therefore change - but not the staff. And that's not really very helpful. This rather interesting article in the New Statesman from 1999 explores that further.
I've taught in a couple of very difficult schools. I've never felt that I was in a situation that would be improved by the use of violence. To be candid, it's difficult to see that corporal punishment would be used now anyway even if it were legal, for that reason.
"Stupid, but I'm not actually outraged for some reason. Marking the things as illustrative would have made it not matter at all."
Likewise.
Photos of actors alongside made up quotes used by the state to justify a controversial policy... Ah lovely
Advertisers do this far more though. What about those sun-drenched adverts for Flora with all that candid wobbly 'hand held' footage of old people getting their collesterol down - they're all actors. (and the product is utterly foul and could not be worse for your health)
We can choose not to buy those products though.
I think state using propaganda and lies is morally worse than commercial advertising
Almost certainly.
However, if the true guidelines are that (for example) people's benefits are NOT to be docked for missing an appointment due to a medical situation, isn't the fake testimonial simply an illustration of the facts?
With respect a Headmaster could hardly claim that he was unaware that the law had changed in Autumn 1987! I rather suspect that if confronted with the accusation - which he openly admitted to his staff - that he would confess his guilt and so avoid any need for a drawn out trial.The evidence is pretty overwhelming and I cannot believe that former members of staff would be likely to lie under oath to protect him should he deny it.
Yes - sorry - those were two separate points. I appreciate that could have been clearer. The first paragraph was on the Head you mentioned - I fully agree you are right, that is clearly criminal behaviour, but I doubt if a prosecution could be launched after this lapse of time.
The second one was because you described the pre-1987 offences as an abuse of power (board rubbers, cuffing etc.). I was explaining why I thought it unlikely the courts would agree, rendering any prosecution rather pointless.
But prosecutions have been launched for sexual offences dating back a good deal earlier than 1987. I accept that what I am referring to is a much less serious offence but that would surely be reflected in any sentence imposed.
It looks pretty evasive to me. 'Has no recollection'; 'In the late 1990s/in the past'; 'is not speaking [when the question was, 'accepted an invitation']' and talking of the use of the word 'friends' as a diplomatic gambit when he is (A) not a diplomat and (B) was not doing anything useful to promote peace. I think this doesn't really put the problems to bed, although no doubt it will be enough for his followers to once again start their ravings about his brilliance and media bias against him.
Jezbollah also does not come across as very convincing when a man is arrested, Corbyn says it's wrong as he's "an honoured citizen", and now he's claiming he was just using "diplomatic language" as an "aid to dialogue". Please.
Comments
Who could be SFSec?
The three great offices of State...
And Thacher's campaign to portray her as a housewife that would clean up the mess Labour left in 1979 was very successful.
Corporal punishment in schools is one subject that does divide the age groups. I suspect most oldies (30 plus) are easy-going about it, and they older they get, the more sympathetic they are.
At the time, I was probably against it, but I was generally against any discipline. And usually the boundaries were consistent. Thus far and no further but at least, we knew.
Sometimes I think some of the older generation have nothing but negative things to say about my generation.
The best example of this is with the bulk of people in social deprivation. The reason they are poor is because they are thick and/or lazy. Societally this description is completely unacceptable. They are "vulnerable" and need "support". It's a ridiculous state of affairs.
It seems bizarre but in general, people don't actually observe the way that Newspeak of 1984 is now thoroughly extant in the United Kingdom.
What rubbish. There is good and bad in every generation. And that is the point. Getting rid of corporal punishment is not much more than a bullies charter. IE a worse form of barbarism.
"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with........and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."
On Cooper, I don't agree with her on the point you've made.
In the old days the defenceless kid could take comfort in the fact the bully was going to get some of his own medicine.
Often, one caning was enough, because bullies are really cowards.
Your system = rule by bully.
Went 0-0.25
and is now 0-0.1
She continued the nail painting ritual every Sunday until she died. She detested organised religions as repressive, mindwashing and in her case cruel.
My first secondary school had this, there were very few classes disrupted and generally bullying etc. were not a problem. The difference with the next school I attended was stark.
First poll that has Trump being the best republican to beat Hillary in 2016, so much for that electability argument:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/index.html
"Since announcing his campaign in late June, Donald Trump has quickly leapt to the top of the Republican field, leading recent polls nationally, in Iowa and in New Hampshire. And now, for the first time in CNN/ORC polling, his gains among the Republican Party have boosted him enough to be competitive in the general election."
Hillary 51 Trump 45
Hillary 52 Walker 46
Hillary 52 Bush 43
Hillary 53 Fiorina 43
So, is there a reason now for republicans to vote for Jeb Bush if he's the second worst candidate in a GE, beaten by Walker and Trump on that measure?
Also what is IE?
Story to be updated etc - Turning out to be an unpleasant year to be a tourist.
It wouldn't work today anyway. My parents would automatically have agreed with the teacher; nowadays, they wouldn't.
But we were taught to ask an adult for help if we got lost, I doubt that's still the case.
"The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted making up comments from supposed "benefit claimants" that appeared in a leaflet about sanctions.
The leaflet, which has now been withdrawn, included positive example stories from people who claimed to have interacted with the sanctions system.
In one example, titled "Sarah's story", a jobseeker is quoted as being "really pleased" after a cut to her benefits supposedly encouraged her to re-draft her CV.
"It's going to help me when I'm ready to go back to work," the fabricated quote reads.
Another, by a benefit claimant supposedly called "Zac", details the sanctions system working well.
But in response to a freedom of information request by the Welfare Weekly website the DWP said the quotes were not actually real cases and that the photos were not of real claimants
'The photos used are stock photos and along with the names do not belong to real claimants. The stories are for illustrative purposes only', the department said."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-admits-making-up-quotes-by-benefit-claimants-saying-sanctions-helped-them-10460351.html
O/T - the Greek rescue package has sailed through the Bundestag.by 453-113. About 60 CDU/CSU members voted no, but the party leadership isn't much bothered.
The real hero was Whitelaw who lost but still served loyally and to his best ability and ensured all wings of the party kept in step. This included in opposition which was when the party formulated the policies which the country needed.
I'm talking about the late fifties. The 'stranger danger' was something my children mentioned.
And now I best go back to work. Perhaps I might be quicker about it with the threat of a caning.
You're right about Sean T - his insults are too funny to take offence at. And to some extent so are Mr G's. turnips and all.
It went on for a year or so, into Year 10. Even though I was in the rugby team and no longer tiny.
One day it came to a head, I was in a quiet part of school and it had kicked off again, but much more physically. I had something sharp in my pocket and went for the ringleader, drawing quite a bit of blood.
As he'd been bullying me and others so much, he was too afraid to go to the school about it and I got left alone for the remainder.
I'm not saying what I did was the best or only way out of it but no teacher was going to sort it out.
Likewise.
"wow corybn gets very angry very quickly.... "
And on a regular basis; he's a mardy arse.
In this case, other changes besides corporal punishment (or lack thereof) can offer counter explanations.
I don't know the answer any more than you do, however as I argued downthread; I suspect that all that is required is strict boundaries, consistently enforced.
I was not aware that a six month limit applies to criminal offences. Most people to this day remain totally unaware that when such things happened to them they were actually victims of criminal behaviour.
I have a sister-in-law who taught at a Primary School. She has referred on a number of occasions to what happened at her school following the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools in Autumn 1987. Her Headmaster continued to plimsoll 10 and 11 year old boys until the early 1990s and justified so doing on the basis that 'the parents agreed with him.' Those lads would now be in their mid to late 30s, and I would be surprised if they did not have a cause of action should they wish to press the matter.
So yes.
See @indigo's post for more detail.
I think Ydoethur mentioned some pupils playing using the class hamster as a football. But, I have a far worse story than that,
Moat Mount School in Mill Hill had a vile reputation. Some teenagers held a mock trial of an unpopular boy, and sentenced him to death. They then proceeded to hang him, from ropes in the gym. Fortunately, a teacher intervened and rescued the victim.
"Remember the saying ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’."
Not very Christian. Anyway, I was caned, on the palm of the hand, in about 1959. It stung at the time but didn't leave a mark. The Head was probably born around 1900 so what do you suggest? We could always dig him up, but he was a kind old soul and I deserved it.
With regard to your earlier point re. abuse of power - leaving aside any other consideration, I doubt if you would persuade any judge or jury that what happened was 'abusing their position' as a teacher. More likely, they would take the view that these were disciplinary matters that were being dealt with mistakenly, but in good faith. Therefore, it seems unlikely a criminal conviction would have been possible, then or now, unless you could prove that they were deliberately and maliciously administering these punishments for their own gratification or as part of a campaign of organised bullying, which would be near-impossible to prove.
So I think whoever wrote that probably doesn't have much idea of what they're saying, and I was interested to see @CD13 say it resembled a spoof advert. Maybe check the source again?
-'Person A is worse than Person B because Person A raped their next door neighbour, and Person B hasn't raped their next door neighbour for a long time'
And me replying:
-'Firstly, the location of the rape is totally irrelevant because Person B has been raping and pillaging everyone else with impunity ever since they came of age, to a far greater extent than Person A could even dream of, and secondly, their next door neighbour is their slave, so absolutely no need to risk breaking the law to get what they want.'
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
Even with the SCP, it appears China does have an issue with female infanticide.
'My lack of awareness does me credit' - that's a back-handed compliment if I ever saw one
An actual hanging is, well...*genuinely lost for words.*
Remember, Johnson will command support from the right and centre, but not from the disgruntled left who will be absolutely fuming, under the scenario you've outlined.
Very frustrating - but that's where we are nowadays. If you're convicted of a crime of benefit cheating, unless it's absolutely huge - DWP would be open to legal threats along the same lines. It's simply sensible.
I think state using propaganda and lies is morally worse than commercial advertising
Her school employed what could only be described as bouncers to stop things getting out of control. She was the archetypal teacher who could turn you into a pillar of salt with a thin-lipped glare of disapproval.
The second one was because you described the pre-1987 offences as an abuse of power (board rubbers, cuffing etc.). I was explaining why I thought it unlikely the courts would agree, rendering any prosecution rather pointless.
One of the best experiences I have ever had was when I ended up interviewing a former bully of mine for a job in my current workplace. The look on his face when he saw me sitting at the conference table was priceless. Suffice it to say he did not get the job.
However, if the true guidelines are that (for example) people's benefits are NOT to be docked for missing an appointment due to a medical situation, isn't the fake testimonial simply an illustration of the facts?
http://bit.ly/1WEs8Gh
It could be a tough place, and my parents paid handsomely for me too attend ...
I've taught in a couple of very difficult schools. I've never felt that I was in a situation that would be improved by the use of violence. To be candid, it's difficult to see that corporal punishment would be used now anyway even if it were legal, for that reason.
Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IBvZlRqOTw
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
I don't get this question. He hasn't been convicted 'of the blood libel', he has been convicted of inciting violence...
http://bit.ly/1Jiboi8