I like the idea if school as somewhere kids an go to learn about being bullied and adults should only step in when it is serious.
How serious is serious? Visible bruising, hospitalisation? Is a card with a threshold to be handed out so all the bullies know exacty what evel of pain either physical or emotional they can go for before they get Ito trouble?
And how about the bullies, will they randomly be given a kicking by a teacher every now and then so they too can dread every day turning up for school expecting their lunch money to be stolen or to be dumped over a fence or a ball kicked so hard at their head when they are not looking their head is driven into a pebble dash wall?
A jolly good idea!
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from making and shedding friends, courting, dealing with authority, how to bend and break the rules, which rules matter and how to rub along with people. All essential preparation for real life, and dealing with insults, unpleasant and aggressive behaviour is part of that. Teachers should be aware of what is going on, but if a bully is dealt with by his/her peers then it is a much more effective and useful control mechanism than a teacher having to intervene. It is all part of socialisation.
Bullying can happen in secret, bullying operates on fear, bullying works because the victim doesn't speak up because they are afraid of reprisal.
Bullying is a child collapsing in class as they never eat lunch because the bully steals their lunch money every day, in secret and out of sight with the threat of extreme violence if the victim speaks out. Every single day. Never a finger laid on them but a threat of violence always hanging over them.
Bullying is that child self harming so they don't have to go to school and face the bullys.
Peers? The bullys peers are other bullys who condone and encourage and the victim is isolated. To then make Authority figures deliberately remote as it's all just part of the growing up process to learn to become the submissive figure in an abusive relationship is the stupidest thing I have read on this board and I've read everything SeanT has posted.
Visited a Tory Leave-leaning friend last night who showed me the BSE leaflet he'd had - a full-colour 4-pager. Neither of us were very impressed but to be fair it was at least 50% positive, including six rather generic claims about X% of businesses trading with the EU, £10 of "trading and other benefits for every £1 spent" and a plug for the benefits of the European Arrest Warrant, which I seem to recall the Tories opposing when we signed it. His view was that "it's a bit UKIP in style - all broad brush exagerrations". But possibly, cynically, they reckon that's what is needed for a rather uninterested public - fight fire with fire etc. The main problem IMO was that it wasn't especially eye-catching - I'm really interested in the subject but it was a bore to plough through it.
His detached view FWIW was that Remain ought to - also arguably cynically - contrast life in Britain in 1973 with life now and major on "Don't go back to isolation". Obviously withdrawal would not really mean a return to black and white TV etc. but the subliminal message would be that things have got better while we were in the EU and withdrawal was to pull out of that process.
It was great to be a heterosexual white male in 1973, of that there can be no doubt. But discrimination against women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals was rife and perfectly legal. Do we really want to go back to that?
I suppose for people (outside Northern Ireland) who remember 1973, the main problem would be over mighty trade unions. But, that problem was sorted by Mrs. Thatcher.
That aside, I think most people who were around at that time think it was a pretty good time to be alive.
As a small employer at the time, I don’t recall any significant personal issues over trade unions, or their effect on my life. Heath’s government was began to fall apart later in the year, but overall life was pretty good. In retrospect it was towards the end of the good times. Certainly personally.
If you don't mind me asking: are you a heterosexual, white male? ;-)
I think there's much truth in that. How would you deal with bullies in adult life, if you never encountered them at school.
Indeed the best place to learn these things is at school where there is some authority that can step in if it all gets out of hand. That is not something that is always at hand in adult life. Similarly I think children should fight, argue and fall out with their siblings, so that they can learn how to resolve conflicts. I liken it to kittens playfighting, with the parent stepping in if someone is getting injuries to person rather than just dignity.
This is how people from other cultures will get socialised (or not) in a host culture. Police stepping in because of an tweet not containing threats to person fall into the same category. Far better for the tweeter to be derided and mocked by the twittersphere.
My views on this exercise of diffuse power is similar to Foucaults ideas as outlined here:
Leaving aside the police action, it turns a man who should be a figure of fun into one of sympathy.
Not excusing the guy at all. Interesting comparison though that some can stand on a British st. spitting venom and hatred at our soldiers and in those cases plod who were looking on do nothing?
I think this is outrageous. The idiot who accosted a Muslim woman and asked her to explain/justify the Belgian attacks [and subsequently tweeted about it] has now been charged: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35898029
The bloke's an utter fool, but [almost] everyone responded appropriately by mocking the contemptible buffoon. Police action is excessive.
I know someone who lives in the area - he's familiar with the idiot in question, who is known to have some real mental issues. Hopefully this won't trigger anything tragic.
Surprised to find that you and your Buddy had both missed this item, you two dummies are usually twatting and posting slavishly on Scottish government. Even in your favourite unionist rag as well, who would have thought you could have missed it.
CULTURE Secretary Fiona Hyslop has been cleared of claims she broke government rules when she handed £150,000 of taxpayers' cash to the T in the Park pop festival.
Public spending watchdog Audit Scotland said there was a "clear rationale for the grant" and found Ms Hyslop acted within the official guidelines.
In a letter to an MSP who complained about the decision, the watchdog confirmed the government had the legal authority to make the payment and had "taken steps to confirm that the money was spent in line with the grant conditions".
I like the idea if school as somewhere kids an go to learn about being bullied and adults should only step in when it is serious.
How serious is serious? Visible bruising, hospitalisation? Is a card with a threshold to be handed out so all the bullies know exacty what evel of pain either physical or emotional they can go for before they get Ito trouble?
And how about the bullies, will they randomly be given a kicking by a teacher every now and then so they too can dread every day turning up for school expecting their lunch money to be stolen or to be dumped over a fence or a ball kicked so hard at their head when they are not looking their head is driven into a pebble dash wall?
A jolly good idea!
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from making and shedding friends, courting, dealing with authority, how to bend and break the rules, which rules matter and how to rub along with people. All essential preparation for real life, and dealing with insults, unpleasant and aggressive behaviour is part of that. Teachers should be aware of what is going on, but if a bully is dealt with by his/her peers then it is a much more effective and useful control mechanism than a teacher having to intervene. It is all part of socialisation.
But bullies are not typically "dealt with" by their peers. They make other children's lives hell for their own amusement and get away with it. That's the "lesson" you want to impart, I suppose.
Also, if your "let them sort it out among themselves" approach is good enough for children why not for adults in the workplace or home?
Yup. Rather than being dealt with by their peers, bullies tend to gather a supportive group around them willing to applaud and flatter them. That's how they manage long and successful careers of intimidation at school, and no doubt beyond.
I think this is outrageous. The idiot who accosted a Muslim woman and asked her to explain/justify the Belgian attacks [and subsequently tweeted about it] has now been charged: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35898029
The bloke's an utter fool, but [almost] everyone responded appropriately by mocking the contemptible buffoon. Police action is excessive.
I think it might be the towelhead tweet that got him into trouble with the CPS
Is this gentleman's tweet on display anywhere?
Or will we be arrested too if we repeat the allegedly racist term while talking about it?
This is section 9, which is appallingly unfocused in its wording:
19 Publishing or distributing written material.
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.
(3)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.
I didn't realise that we had poisonously open-to-opinion wording like this going back this far.
But the most chilling instructions that Abaaoud issued were about the targets Hame was to hit.
"He just told me to choose an easy target like a place where there are people. Imagine a rock concert in a European country. If we arm you, would you be ready to shoot into a crowd?"
Abaaoud added that it was best to wait after the attack for the forces to intervene and then to die while fighting.
Mr. Wanderer, I agree. Whilst good that Rowan Atkinson et al. managed to get the law's madness reduced, it's still excessive if it allows a twonk to be arrested for tweeting stupidly.
Apropos of Blackadder I note that RA returns to our screens on Easter Monday playing French detective Maigret - ITV1 9.00pm.
I think this is outrageous. The idiot who accosted a Muslim woman and asked her to explain/justify the Belgian attacks [and subsequently tweeted about it] has now been charged: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35898029
The bloke's an utter fool, but [almost] everyone responded appropriately by mocking the contemptible buffoon. Police action is excessive.
I think it might be the towelhead tweet that got him into trouble with the CPS
The book "Superforecasters" digs into what makes some people consistently accurate at forecasting events. One key takeaway is that of establishing a base rate or base probability based on precedent (similar to comparative estimation in project estimation). Adjusting that base rate objectively as further information comes in (not being afraid to adjust frequently but by small amounts) is the next step.
It's fairly hard to find many precedents that accurately go across, but there is one where the Prime Minister called a referendum on continued membership of the European Project (based on his renegotiations, which were accused of being minor and cosmetic) for the year after he won a slender majority after having led the largest Party in a hung Parliament. The establishment were pushing for a REMAIN vote, whilst those in favour of LEAVE were seen as political mavericks.
Turnout was down by 7-8% below that of the previous year's General Election.
So I'd put a base rate of around 58% turnout to start with, to be adjusted as people see fit.
It was great to be a heterosexual white male in 1973, of that there can be no doubt. But discrimination against women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals was rife and perfectly legal. Do we really want to go back to that?
Indeed.
Very fair point. Discrimination against women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals was becoming less acceptable though. Alf Garnett was on the box, although most of us were doing what Speight intended, and laughing at his old-fashioned views.
Visited a Tory Leave-leaning friend last night who showed me the BSE leaflet he'd had - a full-colour 4-pager. Neither of us were very impressed but to be fair it was at least 50% positive, including six rather generic claims about X% of businesses trading with the EU, £10 of "trading and other benefits for every £1 spent" and a plug for the benefits of the European Arrest Warrant, which I seem to recall the Tories opposing when we signed it. His view was that "it's a bit UKIP in style - all broad brush exagerrations". But possibly, cynically, they reckon that's what is needed for a rather uninterested public - fight fire with fire etc. The main problem IMO was that it wasn't especially eye-catching - I'm really interested in the subject but it was a bore to plough through it.
His detached view FWIW was that Remain ought to - also arguably cynically - contrast life in Britain in 1973 with life now and major on "Don't go back to isolation". Obviously withdrawal would not really mean a return to black and white TV etc. but the subliminal message would be that things have got better while we were in the EU and withdrawal was to pull out of that process.
Presumably Remain 'ought to' do that for Leave to win - it would be even more farcical than the current project fear.
Especially as it would almost certainly be done in cack-handed way, c/f the Labour Gene Hunt posters which made everyone think better of Cameron....
I like the idea if school as somewhere kids an go to learn about being bullied and adults should only step in when it is serious.
How serious is serious? Visible bruising, hospitalisation? Is a card with a threshold to be handed out so all the bullies know exacty what evel of pain either physical or emotional they can go for before they get Ito trouble?
And how about the bullies, will they randomly be given a kicking by a teacher every now and then so they too can dread every day turning up for school expecting their lunch money to be stolen or to be dumped over a fence or a ball kicked so hard at their head when they are not looking their head is driven into a pebble dash wall?
A jolly good idea!
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from making and shedding friends, courting, dealing with authority, how to bend and break the rules, which rules matter and how to rub along with people. All essential preparation for real life, and dealing with insults, unpleasant and aggressive behaviour is part of that. Teachers should be aware of what is going on, but if a bully is dealt with by his/her peers then it is a much more effective and useful control mechanism than a teacher having to intervene. It is all part of socialisation.
But bullies are not typically "dealt with" by their peers. They make other children's lives hell for their own amusement and get away with it. That's the "lesson" you want to impart, I suppose.
Also, if your "let them sort it out among themselves" approach is good enough for children why not for adults in the workplace or home?
If adults in the workplace or home can't sort it out among themselves, what are they supposed to do? Go crying to the police because they're "offended"?
Let's give 'bullying' it's proper names: assault; extortion; mugging.
The idea that you wouldn't go to the police if and gang kept punching every single day is preposterously ludicrous.
Aparently, the god fearing bible thumper has been playing away from home with Katrina Pieterson (who now works for Trump), Sarah Flores (worked for Carly and explains why Cruz gave Carly half a million dollars) and Amandda Carpenter who is usually on twiiter a lot but has now gone quite and two others.
If only Cruz had not used Melania in anti Trump ads.
Twenty years ago it took 6 months for the National Enquirer true stories about Gary Hart etc to gain traction. This is no longer the case with social media.
If Trump wins, even if the GOP then rallies round, the Democrats are going to have such a feast of attack ads they'll think it's a century of Christmases all come at once.
Trump wants the campaign against HRC to be as dirty as possible, no one has more skeletons in their cupboard than the Clintons.
National Enquirer never publish anything they can't 100% back up, or else they get sued. I remember some Hollywood type saying the National Enquirer is the best if you want some of the stories going around Tinseltown.
I like the idea if school as somewhere kids an go to learn about being bullied and adults should only step in when it is serious.
How serious is serious? Visible bruising, hospitalisation? Is a card with a threshold to be handed out so all the bullies know exacty what evel of pain either physical or emotional they can go for before they get Ito trouble?
And how about the bullies, will they randomly be given a kicking by a teacher every now and then so they too can dread every day turning up for school expecting their lunch money to be stolen or to be dumped over a fence or a ball kicked so hard at their head when they are not looking their head is driven into a pebble dash wall?
A jolly good idea!
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from
Bullying can happen in secret, bullying operates on fear, bullying works because the victim doesn't speak up because they are afraid of reprisal.
Bullying is a child collapsing in class as they never eat lunch because the bully steals their lunch money every day, in secret and out of sight with the threat of extreme violence if the victim speaks out. Every single day. Never a finger laid on them but a threat of violence always hanging over them.
Bullying is that child self harming so they don't have to go to school and face the bullys.
Peers? The bullys peers are other bullys who condone and encourage and the victim is isolated. To then make Authority figures deliberately remote as it's all just part of the growing up process to learn to become the submissive figure in an abusive relationship is the stupidest thing I have read on this board and I've read everything SeanT has posted.
It is precisely because bullying operates out of sight of authority figures that peers are much more effective at managing it. Dealing with bullying does not mean giving in, it stretches to far more complex coping strategies which often are capable of reversing the power dynamics. Everyone likes to see a bully getting their come-uppance.
If a victim learns how to recruit peers to police the bully then all parties do much better in the end, including both victim and bully.
Ultimately attitudes to this depend on where you believe authority in society lies, and hence power. The view that people have enough good in them to police the majority of miscreants by social power Is essentially a life affirming one. The view that only an external power can regulate behaviour by a greater threat is a rather pessimistic one.
I think this is outrageous. The idiot who accosted a Muslim woman and asked her to explain/justify the Belgian attacks [and subsequently tweeted about it] has now been charged: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35898029
The bloke's an utter fool, but [almost] everyone responded appropriately by mocking the contemptible buffoon. Police action is excessive.
I think it might be the towelhead tweet that got him into trouble with the CPS
Most of us - heterosexual White males or not - tend to look back on times when we were young with some nostalgia. So, I think it's unlikely to be a good tactic.
The one part of the UK where it could be effective is Northern Ireland. Life must have been terrifying in 1973.
I suppose for people (outside Northern Ireland) who remember 1973, the main problem would be over mighty trade unions. But, that problem was sorted by Mrs. Thatcher.
That aside, I think most people who were around at that time think it was a pretty good time to be alive.
As a small employer at the time, I don’t recall any significant personal issues over trade unions, or their effect on my life. Heath’s government was began to fall apart later in the year, but overall life was pretty good. In retrospect it was towards the end of the good times. Certainly personally.
If you don't mind me asking: are you a heterosexual, white male? ;-)
I don’t mind at all, and indeed, as I’ve said later in response to Wanderer, in the circumstances of my post that’s a very fair question.
I suppose for people (outside Northern Ireland) who remember 1973, the main problem would be over mighty trade unions. But, that problem was sorted by Mrs. Thatcher.
That aside, I think most people who were around at that time think it was a pretty good time to be alive.
As a small employer at the time, I don’t recall any significant personal issues over trade unions, or their effect on my life. Heath’s government was began to fall apart later in the year, but overall life was pretty good. In retrospect it was towards the end of the good times. Certainly personally.
If you don't mind me asking: are you a heterosexual, white male? ;-)
Kindly do not disturb OKC with leading questions whilst she's enjoying lesbian jollity with her black sister ....
Another key aspect of the 2016 Budget under attack from Conservatives it would seem. When you get the likes of Peter Edgar speaking up against Conservative Government policy, there's a problem.
In effect, the Government is nationalising education and treating it not unlike the NHS with Academy Chains in the place of Trusts. Quite apart from bypassing local authorities and I can understand the desire to circumvent such socialist bastions as Hampshire, Kent and Surrey, it seems parents are also to be excluded with no requirement that any parent should be on the Governing Board of any Academy School.
For a Party which spent much of the 2005-10 claiming it had renounced centralisation and was now in favour of devolution and localism, this is extraordinary.
How is the funding model for each school or Trust to be worked out ? As an example, if you look at the maintenance backlogs for a County Council, I'd estimate 80% of that would be related to school works so I can see the saving for the local authority as it wouldn't need such a large property maintenance and management arm (or much of an Education Department either) but the Government, through the Trusts, is going to pick up this backlog along with the funding required to provide additional places.
As you'll see on Page 2, Surrey will spend £692 million in the next financial year on Schools and Learning and that includes school maintenance and of course staff pay so that's just one authority and the kind of numbers involved.
Again, it's back to accountability - we are apparently to rely on the wisdom of Nicky Morgan and her minions to ensure all the schools are properly maintained and working properly and there's no need for local people and especially parents to worry.
Aparently, the god fearing bible thumper has been playing away from home with Katrina Pieterson (who now works for Trump), Sarah Flores (worked for Carly and explains why Cruz gave Carly half a million dollars) and Amandda Carpenter who is usually on twiiter a lot but has now gone quite and two others.
If only Cruz had not used Melania in anti Trump ads.
Twenty years ago it took 6 months for the National Enquirer true stories about Gary Hart etc to gain traction. This is no longer the case with social media.
If Trump wins, even if the GOP then rallies round, the Democrats are going to have such a feast of attack ads they'll think it's a century of Christmases all come at once.
You don't actually understand this, do you?
We, here, are the weirdos, because we are more interested in politics than ordinary people. as such we actually think about the details of policy etc, ordinary people don't.
As such both you and I can easily come up with objections to Trumps policies (such as they are) but ordinary people will only see that as being "Trump is standing up for us".
Take Trumps attacks on Clinton, there are many avenues he can take concerning corruption illegality etc and some of this he uses when talking to GOP leaning ordinary people. But when Trump talks to a mass of ordinary people (some of whom will lean dem) he doesn't mention this, he focuses on "stamina"
Trumps domination of the news cycle has pushed out mention of Clinton. An ordinary person thinks, haven't heard much from Clinton lately, is she ill?
It's all about identity not intellect.
Want another example. Remember when you took exception to me labeling you as a believer in the magic money tree.
How many times did you vote against Gordon Browns budgets.
(And if you reply to this bit of my post, all I have to say is "There you go again, you did nothing about Gordon Brown spunking the taxpayers money away (its the magic money tree man)).
edit, its about appealing to ordinary people NOT those who already support you because they already agree with your ideology.
another edit, ordinary people will see dem attack ads against Trump and think "meh" or even "Trumps on my side" whilst those like you will be having a multi orgasmic frenzy.
I like the idea if school as somewhere kids an go to learn about being bullied and adults should only step in when it is serious.
How serious is serious? Visible bruising, hospitalisation? Is a card with a threshold to be handed out so all the bullies know exacty what evel of pain either physical or emotional they can go for before they get Ito trouble?
And how about the bullies, will they randomly be given a kicking by a teacher every now and then so they too can dread every day turning up for school expecting their lunch money to be stolen or to be dumped over a fence or a ball kicked so hard at their head when they are not looking their head is driven into a pebble dash wall?
A jolly good idea!
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from
Bullying can happen in secret, bullying operates on fear, bullying works because the victim doesn't speak up because they are afraid of reprisal.
Bullying is a child collapsing in class as they never eat lunch because the bully steals their lunch money every day, in secret and out of sight with the threat of extreme violence if the victim speaks out. Every single day. Never a finger laid on them but a threat of violence always hanging over them.
Bullying is that child self harming so they don't have to go to school and face the bullys.
Peers? The bullys peers are other bullys who condone and encourage and the victim is isolated. To then make Authority figures deliberately remote as it's all just part of the growing up process to learn to become the submissive figure in an abusive relationship is the stupidest thing I have read on this board and I've read everything SeanT has posted.
If a victim learns how to recruit peers to police the bully then all parties do much better in the end, including both victim and bully.
Yes, often a bullying victim will attach themselves to a rival gang as a semi-despised dogsbody to avoid the attentions of the original bullys. Trading one group of bullies for another with the added mental screw of thinking their 'choice' is better for them which makes it even harder to break free of the abusive cycle.
Aparently, the god fearing bible thumper has been playing away from home with Katrina Pieterson (who now works for Trump), Sarah Flores (worked for Carly and explains why Cruz gave Carly half a million dollars) and Amandda Carpenter who is usually on twiiter a lot but has now gone quite and two others.
If only Cruz had not used Melania in anti Trump ads.
Twenty years ago it took 6 months for the National Enquirer true stories about Gary Hart etc to gain traction. This is no longer the case with social media.
If Trump wins, even if the GOP then rallies round, the Democrats are going to have such a feast of attack ads they'll think it's a century of Christmases all come at once.
You don't actually understand this, do you?
We, here, are the weirdos, because we are more interested in politics than ordinary people. as such we actually think about the details of policy etc, ordinary people don't.
As such both you and I can easily come up with objections to Trumps policies (such as they are) but ordinary people will only see that as being "Trump is standing up for us".
Take Trumps attacks on Clinton, there are many avenues he can take concerning corruption illegality etc and some of this he uses when talking to GOP leaning ordinary people. But when Trump talks to a mass of ordinary people (some of whom will lean dem) he doesn't mention this, he focuses on "stamina"
Trumps domination of the news cycle has pushed out mention of Clinton. An ordinary person thinks, haven't heard much from Clinton lately, is she ill?
It's all about identity not intellect.
Want another example. Remember when you took exception to me labeling you as a believer in the magic money tree.
How many times did you vote against Gordon Browns budgets.
(And if you reply to this bit of my post, all I have to say is "There you go again, you did nothing about Gordon Brown spunking the taxpayers money away (its the magic money tree man)).
Why does Trump have such massive unfavorables then?
Another key aspect of the 2016 Budget under attack from Conservatives it would seem. When you get the likes of Peter Edgar speaking up against Conservative Government policy, there's a problem.
In effect, the Government is nationalising education and treating it not unlike the NHS with Academy Chains in the place of Trusts. Quite apart from bypassing local authorities and I can understand the desire to circumvent such socialist bastions as Hampshire, Kent and Surrey, it seems parents are also to be excluded with no requirement that any parent should be on the Governing Board of any Academy School.
For a Party which spent much of the 2005-10 claiming it had renounced centralisation and was now in favour of devolution and localism, this is extraordinary.
How is the funding model for each school or Trust to be worked out ? As an example, if you look at the maintenance backlogs for a County Council, I'd estimate 80% of that would be related to school works so I can see the saving for the local authority as it wouldn't need such a large property maintenance and management arm (or much of an Education Department either) but the Government, through the Trusts, is going to pick up this backlog along with the funding required to provide additional places.
As you'll see on Page 2, Surrey will spend £692 million in the next financial year on Schools and Learning and that includes school maintenance and of course staff pay so that's just one authority and the kind of numbers involved.
Again, it's back to accountability - we are apparently to rely on the wisdom of Nicky Morgan and her minions to ensure all the schools are properly maintained and working properly and there's no need for local people and especially parents to worry.
IMHO yet another example of the mind of the woeful Nicky Morgan. Why she thinks she is up to being leader is one of the unsolved mysteries of the known universe.
Cruz is dead in the water, these things are more than problematic when your campaign slogan is TrusTed and when your base is MidWestern social conservatives.
I suppose for people (outside Northern Ireland) who remember 1973, the main problem would be over mighty trade unions. But, that problem was sorted by Mrs. Thatcher.
That aside, I think most people who were around at that time think it was a pretty good time to be alive.
As a small employer at the time, I don’t recall any significant personal issues over trade unions, or their effect on my life. Heath’s government was began to fall apart later in the year, but overall life was pretty good. In retrospect it was towards the end of the good times. Certainly personally.
If you don't mind me asking: are you a heterosexual, white male? ;-)
Kindly do not disturb OKC with leading questions whilst she's enjoying lesbian jollity with her black sister ....
Don’t worry, my dear fellow; as you frequently demonstrate we older HWM’s can look after ourselves!
Stodge, I'd sooner rely on the wisdom of Mickey Mouse.
One particular feature which I don’t understand is, how are new schools to be established? A responsible LA will look at a developing area and considerat what point a school is to be provided. And in doing so it has access to the planning office. How are Academy chains to get at information? It is, surely, impractible to wait until the parents of 30 or so 5 year old are wandering the streets looking for a school.
Aparently, the god fearing bible thumper has been playing away from home with Katrina Pieterson (who now works for Trump), Sarah Flores (worked for Carly and explains why Cruz gave Carly half a million dollars) and Amandda Carpenter who is usually on twiiter a lot but has now gone quite and two others.
If only Cruz had not used Melania in anti Trump ads.
Twenty years ago it took 6 months for the National Enquirer true stories about Gary Hart etc to gain traction. This is no longer the case with social media.
If Trump wins, even if the GOP then rallies round, the Democrats are going to have such a feast of attack ads they'll think it's a century of Christmases all come at once.
You don't actually understand this, do you?
We, here, are the weirdos, because we are more interested in politics than ordinary people. as such we actually think about the details of policy etc, ordinary people don't.
As such both you and I can easily come up with objections to Trumps policies (such as they are) but ordinary people will only see that as being "Trump is standing up for us".
Take Trumps attacks on Clinton, there are many avenues he can take concerning corruption illegality etc and some of this he uses when talking to GOP leaning ordinary people. But when Trump talks to a mass of ordinary people (some of whom will lean dem) he doesn't mention this, he focuses on "stamina"
Trumps domination of the news cycle has pushed out mention of Clinton. An ordinary person thinks, haven't heard much from Clinton lately, is she ill?
It's all about identity not intellect.
Want another example. Remember when you took exception to me labeling you as a believer in the magic money tree.
How many times did you vote against Gordon Browns budgets.
(And if you reply to this bit of my post, all I have to say is "There you go again, you did nothing about Gordon Brown spunking the taxpayers money away (its the magic money tree man)).
Why does Trump have such massive unfavorables then?
I can see @Gaius point, but he/she takes it too far I think. The "ordinary person" doesn't exist, there are lots of different types of people and, particularly in US elections, this leads to segments of voters. Only a segment of "the people" want a raging bull moose as their president, the rest hate the idea.
Having said that, at the moment I think it will be closer than many imagine.
It's fairly hard to find many precedents that accurately go across, but there is one where the Prime Minister called a referendum on continued membership of the European Project (based on his renegotiations, which were accused of being minor and cosmetic) for the year after he won a slender majority after having led the largest Party in a hung Parliament. The establishment were pushing for a REMAIN vote, whilst those in favour of LEAVE were seen as political mavericks. Turnout was down by 7-8% below that of the previous year's General Election. So I'd put a base rate of around 58% turnout to start with, to be adjusted as people see fit.
I agree. The range of 55% to 60% is where we should be looking. The question of leaving the EU is not as emotional a question as Scotland leaving the UK. Cameron once said that. The other problem is that the GOTV machines on both sides are not going to be as good and effective as the party machines at a GE. Those GOTV machines mainly start without political data.
The ICM poll was conducted on 22-24 March. What time of day do they ask people? The Brussels attacks were carried out at 7-8am on 22 March, British time, but at least some respondents probably didn't hear opinion formers' comments or much in the way of news reports until they got home from work.
With the media stressing that Brussels was in that strange foreign land called "Europe" or "the EU", and going completely shtum about NATO, I find it hard to believe that the attacks didn't help Leave.
Stowaway migrants have cost a fruit and vegetable importer more than £350,000 in a year. Vehicles carrying produce for Gomez have been broken into 15 times over the past 12 months – leaving the family-run firm to pick up the bill.
In the past four weeks alone £80,000 of haulage has had to be discarded amid fears of contamination, after stowaways were found inside the lorries with bottles of urine and dirty clothes
'In the main, most of these people are young men between 17 and 28, all fit, all on their mobile phones as soon as they get off the lorry, all smoking, all happy,' he said. 'We know that not all of them are from places where there are wars. It makes us angry that it's costing us and potentially threatening our employees' jobs.'
Insurance companies do not cover loss of produce due to migrants breaking into the lorries and Gomez is not compensated in any way
Aparently, the god fearing bible thumper has been playing away from home with Katrina Pieterson (who now works for Trump), Sarah Flores (worked for Carly and explains why Cruz gave Carly half a million dollars) and Amandda Carpenter who is usually on twiiter a lot but has now gone quite and two others.
If only Cruz had not used Melania in anti Trump ads.
Twenty years ago it took 6 months for the National Enquirer true stories about Gary Hart etc to gain traction. This is no longer the case with social media.
If Trump wins, even if the GOP then rallies round, the Democrats are going to have such a feast of attack ads they'll think it's a century of Christmases all come at once.
You don't actually understand this, do you?
We, here, are the weirdos, because we are more interested in politics than ordinary people. as such we actually think about the details of policy etc, ordinary people don't.
As such both you and I can easily come up with objections to Trumps policies (such as they are) but ordinary people will only see that as being "Trump is standing up for us".
Take Trumps attacks on Clinton, there are many avenues he can take concerning corruption illegality etc and some of this he uses when talking to GOP leaning ordinary people. But when Trump talks to a mass of ordinary people (some of whom will lean dem) he doesn't mention this, he focuses on "stamina"
Trumps domination of the news cycle has pushed out mention of Clinton. An ordinary person thinks, haven't heard much from Clinton lately, is she ill?
It's all about identity not intellect.
Want another example. Remember when you took exception to me labeling you as a believer in the magic money tree.
How many times did you vote against Gordon Browns budgets.
(And if you reply to this bit of my post, all I have to say is "There you go again, you did nothing about Gordon Brown spunking the taxpayers money away (its the magic money tree man)).
Why does Trump have such massive unfavorables then?
For the same reason Clinton has.
It is the level of unfavourableness which will decide the result.
I like the idea if school as somewhere kids an go to learn about being bullied and adults should only step in when it is serious.
How serious is serious? Visible bruising, hospitalisation? Is a card with a threshold to be handed out so all the bullies know exacty what evel of pain either physical or emotional they can go for before they get Ito trouble?
And how about the bullies, will they randomly be given a kicking by a teacher every now and then so they too can dread every day turning up for school expecting their lunch money to be stolen or to be dumped over a fence or a ball kicked so hard at their head when they are not looking their head is driven into a pebble dash wall?
A jolly good idea!
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from
Bullying can happen in secret, bullying operates on fear, bullying works because the victim doesn't speak up because they are afraid of reprisal.
Bullying is a child collapsing in class as they never eat lunch because the bully steals
Peers? The bullys peers are other bullys who condone and encourage and the victim is isolated. To then make Authority figures deliberately remote as it's all just part of the growing up process to learn to become the submissive figure in an abusive relationship is the stupidest thing I have read on this board and I've read everything SeanT has posted.
If a victim learns how to recruit peers to police the bully then all parties do much better in the end, including both victim and bully.
Yes, often a bullying victim will attach themselves to a rival gang as a semi-despised dogsbody to avoid the attentions of the original bullys. Trading one group of bullies for another with the added mental screw of thinking their 'choice' is better for them which makes it even harder to break free of the abusive cycle.
And all part of life in the real world (including PB land!). My original point is that school is the best place to learn these social skills, in a controlled and regulated way. To wrap children in cotton wool and then throw them in the deep end as an adult is doing them no favours at all.
There are of course situations where more formal intervention are needed at school as in life, but forming a view as to where that line lies is an important social lesson in itself. A school that produces graduates capable of policing themselves as well as empowering them to police their peers has truly done an excellent job.
Since the publication first hit the newsstands (depends on region) the Twitter-sphere has lit up with conversation about the scandal. It appears many political followers believe they have identified two, now three of the blurred out images within the National Enquirer story.
Speaking of bullying, Tommy Sheridan's latest iteration of the Judean People's Liberation Front has inevitably smashed into the buffers. The allegations about their treatment of Lindsay Jarrett (the woman with a serious & terminal lung condition who climbed Edinburgh Castle Rock and pinned a Yes sign to it) look particularly horrible.
'Solidarity in turmoil as former Sheridan allies allege bullying and fraud'
It's fairly hard to find many precedents that accurately go across, but there is one where the Prime Minister called a referendum on continued membership of the European Project (based on his renegotiations, which were accused of being minor and cosmetic) for the year after he won a slender majority after having led the largest Party in a hung Parliament. The establishment were pushing for a REMAIN vote, whilst those in favour of LEAVE were seen as political mavericks. Turnout was down by 7-8% below that of the previous year's General Election. So I'd put a base rate of around 58% turnout to start with, to be adjusted as people see fit.
I agree. The range of 55% to 60% is where we should be looking. The question of leaving the EU is not as emotional a question as Scotland leaving the UK. Cameron once said that. The other problem is that the GOTV machines on both sides are not going to be as good and effective as the party machines at a GE. Those GOTV machines mainly start without political data.
I recall in the 1975 referendum sitting outide my house with neighbour, a Conservative councillor after I’d garaged the Liberal loudspeaker car, which I’d been driving while she urged people to vote. It was about 8 pm and we decvided that further loudspeaking might well be counter-productive. “What can we do now?" she said “Have you got any canvass returns? We haven’t!”
So she went off to her husband and I went in to my wife and children.
The ICM poll was conducted on 22-24 March. What time of day do they ask people? The Brussels attacks were carried out at 7-8am on 22 March, British time, but at least some respondents probably didn't hear opinion formers' comments or much in the way of news reports until they got home from work.
With the media stressing that Brussels was in that strange foreign land called "Europe" or "the EU", and going completely shtum about NATO, I find it hard to believe that the attacks didn't help Leave.
I received the email asking me to take part in the poll at 5.33pm Tuesday afternoon, so I'm assuming it started around then.
Stodge, I'd sooner rely on the wisdom of Mickey Mouse.
One particular feature which I don’t understand is, how are new schools to be established? A responsible LA will look at a developing area and consider at what point a school is to be provided. And in doing so it has access to the planning office. How are Academy chains to get at information? It is, surely, impractible to wait until the parents of 30 or so 5 year old are wandering the streets looking for a school.
It doesn't work that way at present. If a Free School or a Trust wants to open a completely new school, it goes to the Local Education Authority (LEA) and asks if there is anywhere available. The LEA probably won't have any spare land so land will have to be purchased (in competition with developers wanting to build new homes for more families with more children) and then the new school built.
It's much easier to build additional capacity on existing sites even if that means reducing play areas and providing portable classrooms. That solves the Primary School problem and the current bulge has given sensible LEAs a little time to sort out solutions at Secondary level which usually means new schools on either existing sites or new sites. Secondaries take longer to build and need much more space but they can be constructed.
Aparently, the god fearing bible thumper has been playing away from home with Katrina Pieterson (who now works for Trump), Sarah Flores (worked for Carly and explains why Cruz gave Carly half a million dollars) and Amandda Carpenter who is usually on twiiter a lot but has now gone quite and two others.
If only Cruz had not used Melania in anti Trump ads.
Twenty years ago it took 6 months for the National Enquirer true stories about Gary Hart etc to gain traction. This is no longer the case with social media.
If Trump wins, even if the GOP then rallies round, the Democrats are going to have such a feast of attack ads they'll think it's a century of Christmases all come at once.
You don't actually understand this, do you?
We, here, are the weirdos, because we are more interested in politics than ordinary people. as such we actually think about the details of policy etc, ordinary people don't.
As such both you and I can easily come up with objections to Trumps policies (such as they are) but ordinary people will only see that as being "Trump is standing up for us".
Take Trumps attacks on Clinton, there are many avenues he can take concerning corruption illegality etc and some of this he uses when talking to GOP leaning ordinary people. But when Trump talks to a mass of ordinary people (some of whom will lean dem) he doesn't mention this, he focuses on "stamina"
Trumps domination of the news cycle has pushed out mention of Clinton. An ordinary person thinks, haven't heard much from Clinton lately, is she ill?
It's all about identity not intellect.
Want another example. Remember when you took exception to me labeling you as a believer in the magic money tree.
How many times did you vote against Gordon Browns budgets.
(And if you reply to this bit of my post, all I have to say is "There you go again, you did nothing about Gordon Brown spunking the taxpayers money away (its the magic money tree man)).
Why does Trump have such massive unfavorables then?
For the same reason Clinton has.
It is the level of unfavourableness which will decide the result.
Hilary's net unfavourables is -13, Trump's is similar in that it uses the same digits, it is -31.
And all part of life in the real world (including PB land!). My original point is that school is the best place to learn these social skills, in a controlled and regulated way. To wrap children in cotton wool and then throw them in the deep end as an adult is doing them no favours at all.
There are of course situations where more formal intervention are needed at school as in life, but forming a view as to where that line lies is an important social lesson in itself. A school that produces graduates capable of policing themselves as well as empowering them to police their peers has truly done an excellent job.
People who learn to be abused as a child often go on to be abused as an adult. People don't leap undamaged into abusive relationships - it is learned behaviour.
A normal adult who wasn't bullied as a child reacts with anger and fights back when someone tries to bully them as an adult. An adult that was repeatedly bullied as a child accepts as normal attempts to bully them as an adult and resigns themselves to it.
Getting bullied isn't a learning experience, it is psychological abuse no matter what the age.
Mr. Moses, ah, yes, I remember them now (the spitters and poppy protesters, to be polite). I also remember the Danish cartoon march that was afforded police protection as they prowled through London with placards calling for death to the west, and the decapitation of those who insult Islam. [Yes, there were some arrests afterwards. But the protest should never have been permitted and arrests made at the time].
If Trump wins, even if the GOP then rallies round, the Democrats are going to have such a feast of attack ads they'll think it's a century of Christmases all come at once.
You don't actually understand this, do you?
We, here, are the weirdos, because we are more interested in politics than ordinary people. as such we actually think about the details of policy etc, ordinary people don't.
As such both you and I can easily come up with objections to Trumps policies (such as they are) but ordinary people will only see that as being "Trump is standing up for us".
Take Trumps attacks on Clinton, there are many avenues he can take concerning corruption illegality etc and some of this he uses when talking to GOP leaning ordinary people. But when Trump talks to a mass of ordinary people (some of whom will lean dem) he doesn't mention this, he focuses on "stamina"
Trumps domination of the news cycle has pushed out mention of Clinton. An ordinary person thinks, haven't heard much from Clinton lately, is she ill?
It's all about identity not intellect.
Want another example. Remember when you took exception to me labeling you as a believer in the magic money tree.
How many times did you vote against Gordon Browns budgets.
(And if you reply to this bit of my post, all I have to say is "There you go again, you did nothing about Gordon Brown spunking the taxpayers money away (its the magic money tree man)).
Why does Trump have such massive unfavorables then?
I can see @Gaius point, but he/she takes it too far I think. The "ordinary person" doesn't exist, there are lots of different types of people and, particularly in US elections, this leads to segments of voters. Only a segment of "the people" want a raging bull moose as their president, the rest hate the idea.
Having said that, at the moment I think it will be closer than many imagine.
I think there is more than a slight possiblity of a Trump landslide.
A lot of ordinary Americans perceive that things have not gone very well for themselves compared to the celebrities and rich people. As such, they perceive they have nothing to lose.
Added to which Clinton is simply not a good politician.
The ICM poll was conducted on 22-24 March. What time of day do they ask people? The Brussels attacks were carried out at 7-8am on 22 March, British time, but at least some respondents probably didn't hear opinion formers' comments or much in the way of news reports until they got home from work.
With the media stressing that Brussels was in that strange foreign land called "Europe" or "the EU", and going completely shtum about NATO, I find it hard to believe that the attacks didn't help Leave.
I received the email asking me to take part in the poll at 5.33pm Tuesday afternoon, so I'm assuming it started around then.
I note you participate in a number of these polls bit I was Just wondering, if they keep asking the same people would they not get the same result each time? How do they decide who to ask, about what, when and how many times to ask so as to get a good spread of opinions and perhaps identify changes or trends. Perhaps simply asking the same person shows that anyway?
@Grinbin5: So much fence sitting #SNP must have to constantly pick splinters out their backsides, dangerous with pants on fire. https://t.co/JVbXEvKXFY
Sonya Elise That moment when u spend a year complaining about donalds one affair and have 2 live with the realization ur candidate had 5 #cruzsexscandal
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from
Bullying can happen in secret, bullying operates on fear, bullying works because the victim doesn't speak up because they are afraid of reprisal.
Bullying is a child collapsing in class as they never eat lunch because the bully steals
Peers? The bullys peers are other bullys who condone and encourage and the victim is isolated. To then make Authority figures deliberately remote as it's all just part of the growing up process to learn to become the submissive figure in an abusive relationship is the stupidest thing I have read on this board and I've read everything SeanT has posted.
If a victim learns how to recruit peers to police the bully then all parties do much better in the end, including both victim and bully.
Yes, often a bullying victim will attach themselves to a rival gang as a semi-despised dogsbody to avoid the attentions of the original bullys. Trading one group of bullies for another with the added mental screw of thinking their 'choice' is better for them which makes it even harder to break free of the abusive cycle.
And all part of life in the real world (including PB land!). My original point is that school is the best place to learn these social skills, in a controlled and regulated way. To wrap children in cotton wool and then throw them in the deep end as an adult is doing them no favours at all.
There are of course situations where more formal intervention are needed at school as in life, but forming a view as to where that line lies is an important social lesson in itself. A school that produces graduates capable of policing themselves as well as empowering them to police their peers has truly done an excellent job.
And if a school doesn't have enough bullies, should more be encouraged? Or should the teachers start to bully the pupils instead?
The ICM poll was conducted on 22-24 March. What time of day do they ask people? The Brussels attacks were carried out at 7-8am on 22 March, British time, but at least some respondents probably didn't hear opinion formers' comments or much in the way of news reports until they got home from work.
With the media stressing that Brussels was in that strange foreign land called "Europe" or "the EU", and going completely shtum about NATO, I find it hard to believe that the attacks didn't help Leave.
I received the email asking me to take part in the poll at 5.33pm Tuesday afternoon, so I'm assuming it started around then.
I note you participate in a number of these polls bit I was Just wondering, if they keep asking the same people would they not get the same result each time? How do they decide who to ask, about what, when and how many times to ask so as to get a good spread of opinions and perhaps identify changes or trends. Perhaps simply asking the same person shows that anyway?
This is my first ICM EURef poll I've taken part in.
I take part in a lot of YouGovs simply because I'm in a demographic they have trouble getting enough respondsents to take part in.
Also I was in the most phone polled constituency of the last election.
But friends of Sir Alan confirmed that he had visited the London head office of the Vote Leave campaign on January 15 but denied that he had ever asked for a seat on the board. The friend said: "He never said he was definitely for out - he was weighing everything up. He could not ask for a place on the board because there was not a board. "He concluded that there were a complete shambles and he said 'without a board you will not have a campaign'. "This is just Matthew Elliott being Matthew Elliott - that is one of the major problems with Vote Leave."
How stupid are the Belgians. Get intelligence from Turkey about a potential terrorist. Ignore it and don't tell the rest of Europe about it either. FFS, it's just error after error after error with these guys.
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from
Bullying can happen in secret, bullying operates on fear, bullying works because the victim doesn't speak up because they are afraid of reprisal.
Bullying is a child collapsing in class as they never eat lunch because the bully steals
Peers? The bullys peers are other bullys who condone and encourage and the victim is isolated. To then make Authority figures deliberately remote as it's all just part of the growing up process to learn to become the submissive figure in an abusive relationship is the stupidest thing I have read on this board and I've read everything SeanT has posted.
If a victim learns how to recruit peers to police the bully then all parties do much better in the end, including both victim and bully.
Yes, often a bullying victim will attach themselves to a rival gang as a semi-despised dogsbody to avoid the attentions of the original bullys. Trading one group of bullies for another with the added mental screw of thinking their 'choice' is better for them which makes it even harder to break free of the abusive cycle.
And all part of life in the real world (including PB land!). My original point is that school is the best place to learn these social skills, in a controlled and regulated way. To wrap children in cotton wool and then throw them in the deep end as an adult is doing them no favours at all.
There are of course situations where more formal intervention are needed at school as in life, but forming a view as to where that line lies is an important social lesson in itself. A school that produces graduates capable of policing themselves as well as empowering them to police their peers has truly done an excellent job.
And if a school doesn't have enough bullies, should more be encouraged? Or should the teachers start to bully the pupils instead?
"Or should the teachers start to bully the pupils instead?"
As mentioned previously ....
we were taught by Nuns .....absolutely feck all scares us now
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from
Bullying can happen in secret, bullying operates on fear, bullying works because the victim doesn't speak up because they are afraid of reprisal.
Bullying is a child collapsing in class as they never eat lunch because the bully steals
Peers? The bullys peers are other bullys who condone and encourage and the victim is isolated. To then make Authority figures deliberately remote as it's all just part of the growing up process to learn to become the submissive figure in an abusive relationship is the stupidest thing I have read on this board and I've read everything SeanT has posted.
If a victim learns how to recruit peers to police the bully then all parties do much better in the end, including both victim and bully.
Yes, often a bullying victim will attach themselves to a rival gang as a semi-despised dogsbody to avoid the attentions of the original bullys. Trading one group of bullies for another with the added mental screw of thinking their 'choice' is better for them which makes it even harder to break free of the abusive cycle.
And all part of life in the real world (including PB land!). My original point is that school is the best place to learn these social skills, in a controlled and regulated way. To wrap children in cotton wool and then throw them in the deep end as an adult is doing them no favours at all.
There are of course situations where more formal intervention are needed at school as in life, but forming a view as to where that line lies is an important social lesson in itself. A school that produces graduates capable of policing themselves as well as empowering them to police their peers has truly done an excellent job.
And if a school doesn't have enough bullies, should more be encouraged? Or should the teachers start to bully the pupils instead?
Everyone has to be beaten unconciouss once a term.
Because being physically assaulted is a social skill you need to learn.
Stodge, I'd sooner rely on the wisdom of Mickey Mouse.
One particular feature which I don’t understand is, how are new schools to be established? A responsible LA will look at a developing area and consider at what point a school is to be provided. And in doing so it has access to the planning office. How are Academy chains to get at information? It is, surely, impractible to wait until the parents of 30 or so 5 year old are wandering the streets looking for a school.
It doesn't work that way at present. If a Free School or a Trust wants to open a completely new school, it goes to the Local Education Authority (LEA) and asks if there is anywhere available. The LEA probably won't have any spare land so land will have to be purchased (in competition with developers wanting to build new homes for more families with more children) and then the new school built.
It's much easier to build additional capacity on existing sites even if that means reducing play areas and providing portable classrooms. That solves the Primary School problem and the current bulge has given sensible LEAs a little time to sort out solutions at Secondary level which usually means new schools on either existing sites or new sites. Secondaries take longer to build and need much more space but they can be constructed.
There’s a recent statement from the MoD that land is to be available in N Essex for 7000 new houses. That probably means about that number of children, assuming some occupants have two or more, and some none. Under the projected policy, who is reponsible for building the schools they will need?
#Cruzsexscandal Twitter Trending at #1 in the USA.
The only way he can stop it now is to take the NE to court and any women who come forward and confirm it to court. If it is true then he won't do this, so his campaign is dead.
Alan King If UK (a founding member) rejoined EFTA, it would become the world's 4th biggest trading area
If the UK didn't join any trading block, it would be the fifth largest trading area. But there's a long way between number there (ASEAN) and the current number four (Mercusor)
You Are Here 'I did not have sexual realtions with that woman.....or that woman.....or that woman.....or that one.....how many are there' #CruzSexScandal
There’s a recent statement from the MoD that land is to be available in N Essex for 7000 new houses. That probably means about that number of children, assuming some occupants have two or more, and some none. Under the projected policy, who is reponsible for building the schools they will need?
Ah, that's a whole other can of worms. Central Government has apparently since 2010 sold off an area of land the size of Monaco but has now decided it needs to get serious so under new arrangements it is trying to find out all the land it holds (and the biggest problem is the MoD as no one seems to know the full extent of MoD ownership) and will effectively operate as a corporate landlord charging Government departments rent for the space occupied.
There will therefore be a considerable incentive for Government Departments to get out of office buildings and anything else (there will be a glut of office space on the market once the DWP ends its PFI Contract in 2018). As the MoD finds land like this, it is trying to sell it for residential development.
As part of the Section 106 Agreement, any developer will have to provide some form of community facility so perhaps the developer, in exchange for their 7,000 houses, will have to provide a school, a health centre and maybe a library and an Academy Trust will walk in to the newly-provided school and provide a service from these new buildings.
Alan King If UK (a founding member) rejoined EFTA, it would become the world's 4th biggest trading area
If the UK didn't join any trading block, it would be the fifth largest trading area. But there's a long way between number there (ASEAN) and the current number four (Mercusor)
For me, this has always been the best option. Rejoin and reinvigorate EFTA as a free trading alternative to the EU renegotiating current arrangements and inviting other EU members dissatisfied with the current direction of the EU to jump ship and join EFTA.
Base the minimalist EFTA organisation in London and work with other regional trading blocs worldwide.
WRT bullying, surely everyone gets bullied at school on occasion? I know I did and I wasn't unusual.
Bullying covers a very wide variety from 'being shoved over once or twice in a year by an arsehole' to 'a six year long camapign of daily physical and mental abuse'
Glad that you liked it. I meant it seriously, though I think your reply is less serious.
There is an informal curriculum at any school alongside the academic curriculum. This involves everything from
Bullying can happen in secret, bullying operates .
If a victim learns how to recruit peers to police the bully then all parties do much better in the end, including both victim and bully.
Yes, often a bullying victim will attach themselves to a rival gang as a semi-despised dogsbody to avoid the attentions of the original bullys. Trading one group of bullies for another with the added mental screw of thinking their 'choice' is better for them which makes it even harder to break free of the abusive cycle.
And all part of life in the real world (including PB land!). My original point is that school is the best place to learn these social skills, in a controlled and regulated way. To wrap children in cotton wool and then throw them in the deep end as an adult is doing them no favours at all.
There are of course situations where more formal intervention are needed at school as in life, but forming a view as to where that line lies is an important social lesson in itself. A school that produces graduates capable of policing themselves as well as empowering them to police their peers has truly done an excellent job.
And if a school doesn't have enough bullies, should more be encouraged? Or should the teachers start to bully the pupils instead?
Bearing in mind that all schools of significant size will have a number of pupils that could have developed into bullies in other circumstances, then I would argue that the school already has an excellent system of self regulation by peer group on place already. No further intervention required ( though perhaps some lessons to be learned by neighbouring schools!).
Some replies are being deliberately obtuse. I never advocated teachers never intervening, and if systematic physical damage is being inflicted then it is probably appropriate to do so. A well functioning school with good social controls being exerted by pupils should never get that far.
Comments
Bullying is a child collapsing in class as they never eat lunch because the bully steals their lunch money every day, in secret and out of sight with the threat of extreme violence if the victim speaks out. Every single day. Never a finger laid on them but a threat of violence always hanging over them.
Bullying is that child self harming so they don't have to go to school and face the bullys.
Peers? The bullys peers are other bullys who condone and encourage and the victim is isolated. To then make Authority figures deliberately remote as it's all just part of the growing up process to learn to become the submissive figure in an abusive relationship is the stupidest thing I have read on this board and I've read everything SeanT has posted.
Somthing like this 70's ad perhaps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peXym-hzFEc
This is how people from other cultures will get socialised (or not) in a host culture. Police stepping in because of an tweet not containing threats to person fall into the same category. Far better for the tweeter to be derided and mocked by the twittersphere.
My views on this exercise of diffuse power is similar to Foucaults ideas as outlined here:
http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/
twatting and posting slavishly on Scottish government. Even in your favourite unionist rag as well, who would have thought you could have missed it.
CULTURE Secretary Fiona Hyslop has been cleared of claims she broke government rules when she handed £150,000 of taxpayers' cash to the T in the Park pop festival.
Public spending watchdog Audit Scotland said there was a "clear rationale for the grant" and found Ms Hyslop acted within the official guidelines.
In a letter to an MSP who complained about the decision, the watchdog confirmed the government had the legal authority to make the payment and had "taken steps to confirm that the money was spent in line with the grant conditions".
Or will we be arrested too if we repeat the allegedly racist term while talking about it?
This is section 9, which is appallingly unfocused in its wording: I didn't realise that we had poisonously open-to-opinion wording like this going back this far.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35872562 Panorama link http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07598xc
The Thin Blue (Red and White) Line?
It's fairly hard to find many precedents that accurately go across, but there is one where the Prime Minister called a referendum on continued membership of the European Project (based on his renegotiations, which were accused of being minor and cosmetic) for the year after he won a slender majority after having led the largest Party in a hung Parliament. The establishment were pushing for a REMAIN vote, whilst those in favour of LEAVE were seen as political mavericks.
Turnout was down by 7-8% below that of the previous year's General Election.
So I'd put a base rate of around 58% turnout to start with, to be adjusted as people see fit.
Especially as it would almost certainly be done in cack-handed way, c/f the Labour Gene Hunt posters which made everyone think better of Cameron....
The idea that you wouldn't go to the police if and gang kept punching every single day is preposterously ludicrous.
National Enquirer never publish anything they can't 100% back up, or else they get sued. I remember some Hollywood type saying the National Enquirer is the best if you want some of the stories going around Tinseltown.
Is Woodcock planning to be the stalking horse this summer?
If a victim learns how to recruit peers to police the bully then all parties do much better in the end, including both victim and bully.
Ultimately attitudes to this depend on where you believe authority in society lies, and hence power. The view that people have enough good in them to police the majority of miscreants by social power
Is essentially a life affirming one. The view that only an external power can regulate behaviour by a greater threat is a rather pessimistic one.
I fail to see how that tweet would be an offence when any number of other insulting comments are not.
The one part of the UK where it could be effective is Northern Ireland. Life must have been terrifying in 1973.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35897430
Another key aspect of the 2016 Budget under attack from Conservatives it would seem. When you get the likes of Peter Edgar speaking up against Conservative Government policy, there's a problem.
In effect, the Government is nationalising education and treating it not unlike the NHS with Academy Chains in the place of Trusts. Quite apart from bypassing local authorities and I can understand the desire to circumvent such socialist bastions as Hampshire, Kent and Surrey, it seems parents are also to be excluded with no requirement that any parent should be on the Governing Board of any Academy School.
For a Party which spent much of the 2005-10 claiming it had renounced centralisation and was now in favour of devolution and localism, this is extraordinary.
How is the funding model for each school or Trust to be worked out ? As an example, if you look at the maintenance backlogs for a County Council, I'd estimate 80% of that would be related to school works so I can see the saving for the local authority as it wouldn't need such a large property maintenance and management arm (or much of an Education Department either) but the Government, through the Trusts, is going to pick up this backlog along with the funding required to provide additional places.
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/84428/Council-Tax-2016_v3.pdf
As you'll see on Page 2, Surrey will spend £692 million in the next financial year on Schools and Learning and that includes school maintenance and of course staff pay so that's just one authority and the kind of numbers involved.
Again, it's back to accountability - we are apparently to rely on the wisdom of Nicky Morgan and her minions to ensure all the schools are properly maintained and working properly and there's no need for local people and especially parents to worry.
We, here, are the weirdos, because we are more interested in politics than ordinary people. as such we actually think about the details of policy etc, ordinary people don't.
As such both you and I can easily come up with objections to Trumps policies (such as they are) but ordinary people will only see that as being "Trump is standing up for us".
Take Trumps attacks on Clinton, there are many avenues he can take concerning corruption illegality etc and some of this he uses when talking to GOP leaning ordinary people. But when Trump talks to a mass of ordinary people (some of whom will lean dem) he doesn't mention this, he focuses on "stamina"
Trumps domination of the news cycle has pushed out mention of Clinton. An ordinary person thinks, haven't heard much from Clinton lately, is she ill?
It's all about identity not intellect.
Want another example. Remember when you took exception to me labeling you as a believer in the magic money tree.
How many times did you vote against Gordon Browns budgets.
(And if you reply to this bit of my post, all I have to say is "There you go again, you did nothing about Gordon Brown spunking the taxpayers money away (its the magic money tree man)).
edit, its about appealing to ordinary people NOT those who already support you because they already agree with your ideology.
another edit, ordinary people will see dem attack ads against Trump and think "meh" or even "Trumps on my side" whilst those like you will be having a multi orgasmic frenzy.
Cruz is dead in the water, these things are more than problematic when your campaign slogan is TrusTed and when your base is MidWestern social conservatives.
Alan King
If UK (a founding member) rejoined EFTA, it would become the world's 4th biggest trading area
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12203997/Sir-Alan-Duncan-tried-to-join-board-of-Leave-organisation-weeks-before-saying-he-will-campaign-to-stay-In.html
Having said that, at the moment I think it will be closer than many imagine.
Five affairs, Ted that doesn't sound like something a devote Christian should be doing. #CruzSexScandal https://t.co/k05yuIHH2R
Twitter is having enormous fun with National Enquirer expose
With the media stressing that Brussels was in that strange foreign land called "Europe" or "the EU", and going completely shtum about NATO, I find it hard to believe that the attacks didn't help Leave.
Vehicles carrying produce for Gomez have been broken into 15 times over the past 12 months – leaving the family-run firm to pick up the bill.
In the past four weeks alone £80,000 of haulage has had to be discarded amid fears of contamination, after stowaways were found inside the lorries with bottles of urine and dirty clothes
'In the main, most of these people are young men between 17 and 28, all fit, all on their mobile phones as soon as they get off the lorry, all smoking, all happy,' he said. 'We know that not all of them are from places where there are wars. It makes us angry that it's costing us and potentially threatening our employees' jobs.'
Insurance companies do not cover loss of produce due to migrants breaking into the lorries and Gomez is not compensated in any way
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3508801/Stowaway-migrants-cost-fruit-importer-350-000-breaking-lorries-15-times-year.html#ixzz43uKJCyfC
It is the level of unfavourableness which will decide the result.
There are of course situations where more formal intervention are needed at school as in life, but forming a view as to where that line lies is an important social lesson in itself. A school that produces graduates capable of policing themselves as well as empowering them to police their peers has truly done an excellent job.
'Solidarity in turmoil as former Sheridan allies allege bullying and fraud'
http://tinyurl.com/ja354zz
So she went off to her husband and I went in to my wife and children.
Twitter now trending #goodfriday and #tedcruz
It's much easier to build additional capacity on existing sites even if that means reducing play areas and providing portable classrooms. That solves the Primary School problem and the current bulge has given sensible LEAs a little time to sort out solutions at Secondary level which usually means new schools on either existing sites or new sites. Secondaries take longer to build and need much more space but they can be constructed.
A normal adult who wasn't bullied as a child reacts with anger and fights back when someone tries to bully them as an adult. An adult that was repeatedly bullied as a child accepts as normal attempts to bully them as an adult and resigns themselves to it.
Getting bullied isn't a learning experience, it is psychological abuse no matter what the age.
#SNP must have to constantly pick splinters out their backsides, dangerous with pants on fire. https://t.co/JVbXEvKXFY
That moment when u spend a year complaining about donalds one affair and have 2 live with the realization ur candidate had 5 #cruzsexscandal
I take part in a lot of YouGovs simply because I'm in a demographic they have trouble getting enough respondsents to take part in.
Also I was in the most phone polled constituency of the last election.
The friend said: "He never said he was definitely for out - he was weighing everything up. He could not ask for a place on the board because there was not a board.
"He concluded that there were a complete shambles and he said 'without a board you will not have a campaign'.
"This is just Matthew Elliott being Matthew Elliott - that is one of the major problems with Vote Leave."
How stupid are the Belgians. Get intelligence from Turkey about a potential terrorist. Ignore it and don't tell the rest of Europe about it either. FFS, it's just error after error after error with these guys.
As mentioned previously ....
we were taught by Nuns .....absolutely feck all scares us now
Because being physically assaulted is a social skill you need to learn.
Indeed but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged or shrugged off - any more than domestic violence should be.
Gawker is now reporting Melania Trump is one of the mistresses in the #CruzSexScandal . @realDonaldTrump
But this is the US republican race we're talking about.
I can't believe the GOP vetting didn't know about this, loads of others apparently did.
Hilarious petard hoisting for Cruz.
I'd say that's almost priced in tbh (Not saying it would happen, but if it did - well he's not based his entire campaign on bible thumping)
'I did not have sexual realtions with that woman.....or that woman.....or that woman.....or that one.....how many are there'
#CruzSexScandal
There will therefore be a considerable incentive for Government Departments to get out of office buildings and anything else (there will be a glut of office space on the market once the DWP ends its PFI Contract in 2018). As the MoD finds land like this, it is trying to sell it for residential development.
As part of the Section 106 Agreement, any developer will have to provide some form of community facility so perhaps the developer, in exchange for their 7,000 houses, will have to provide a school, a health centre and maybe a library and an Academy Trust will walk in to the newly-provided school and provide a service from these new buildings.
Base the minimalist EFTA organisation in London and work with other regional trading blocs worldwide.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3508882/Mac-migrants-sneaking-Britain-lorries.html
Ted is another story.
Some replies are being deliberately obtuse. I never advocated teachers never intervening, and if systematic physical damage is being inflicted then it is probably appropriate to do so. A well functioning school with good social controls being exerted by pupils should never get that far.