Mr. F, thanks, it did seem fitting. If I'd broadened the scope, a comparable comment may have been made in the opposite direction regarding Nero and Agrippina.
Thanks for those suggestions. I shall make a note, and may write a part 2 at some point (although a review of Twelve Caesars and a grumble about the new PS4 shall likely be first).
Mr Dancer, what's wrong with the new PS4? I'm about to order the slim one.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
Quite. It all comes down to the different interpretations that Left and Right place on the concept of equality. The former places more weight on attempting to achieve equality of outcome, the latter upon equality of opportunity.
Or, to put it another way, Sir Michael Wilshaw objected to grammars on the Today programme this morning partly on the grounds that taking the smartest kids out of comprehensives would be detrimental to those left behind. A supporter of grammars might counter that the point of selection is to improve opportunity for the brightest children by not obliging them to share educational time and resources with the disruptive and the dim. Harsh but, in the view of many parents, perfectly fair.
@tlg86 I'm confused as to why people who have sent their offspring to private schools should not be allowed to have an opinion on grammars. My parents for instance...
If people want to send their kids to private schools that's their business - 7% do. That saves the state money, etc. etc. The problem, I have, is when politicians take a position on state schools but don't want their own kids anywhere near them. What would it take for Morgan to have sent her own son to one of her marvelous comps?
Personally I'm not sure the likes of Morgan are smart enough to make this connection, but the suspicion is that the rich don't like grammars as they create competition for their own privately educated children.
Mr. Sandpit, I meant the PS4 Pro, rather than the slim.
Basically, it's not good enough to be a whole new console, and it's come out too soon to justify the expense. However, everyone with a PS4 now knows they've got the peasant version [not too happy about the risk of overheating my old model either].
But the real problem is strategic. Come the PS5, who will buy? You know a 5.5 may be out in a few years. Do you wait? I can't afford a console every 3 years or so. I don't know if I'd get a PS5 or wait. And if I wait, that'll likely be 10 years or so since the PS4, and I'm not sure whether I'll bother.
Consoles are meant to be convenience. Wait 7 years, buy one, plug in and play, the end. Those who want to spend more money for superior performance and incremental improvements can go PC. This feels like a crap No Man's Land. Not as good as a PC, but more expensive than the traditional console approach.
That's probably just me being grumpy. But there we are.
[And that's without getting into 4K TVs, VR, the VR peripherals].
Mr. F, yeah, I read she was rather attractive. Just as well, given how frisky she was.
@tlg86 I'm confused as to why people who have sent their offspring to private schools should not be allowed to have an opinion on grammars. My parents for instance...
If people want to send their kids to private schools that's their business - 7% do. That saves the state money, etc. etc. The problem, I have, is when politicians take a position on state schools but don't want their own kids anywhere near them. What would it take for Morgan to have sent her own son to one of her marvelous comps?
Personally I'm not sure the likes of Morgan are smart enough to make this connection, but the suspicion is that the rich don't like grammars as they create competition for their own privately educated children.
Once you have finished muckspreading, perhaps you might advise which school Nicky Morgan has chosen (the type will do given child protection). I assume you know given that you constructed a series of allegations based on your absolute knowledge.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
Quite. It all comes down to the different interpretations that Left and Right place on the concept of equality. The former places more weight on attempting to achieve equality of outcome, the latter upon equality of opportunity.
Or, to put it another way, Sir Michael Wilshaw objected to grammars on the Today programme this morning partly on the grounds that taking the smartest kids out of comprehensives would be detrimental to those left behind. A supporter of grammars might counter that the point of selection is to improve opportunity for the brightest children by not obliging them to share educational time and resources with the disruptive and the dim. Harsh but, in the view of many parents, perfectly fair.
I wonder what the percentage of parents is who will conclude that it's no great problem that kids get their shot at equality of opportunity aged 10.
@tlg86 I'm confused as to why people who have sent their offspring to private schools should not be allowed to have an opinion on grammars. My parents for instance...
If people want to send their kids to private schools that's their business - 7% do. That saves the state money, etc. etc. The problem, I have, is when politicians take a position on state schools but don't want their own kids anywhere near them. What would it take for Morgan to have sent her own son to one of her marvelous comps?
Personally I'm not sure the likes of Morgan are smart enough to make this connection, but the suspicion is that the rich don't like grammars as they create competition for their own privately educated children.
Once you have finished muckspreading, perhaps you might advise which school Nicky Morgan has chosen (the type will do given child protection). I assume you know given that you constructed a series of allegations based on your absolute knowledge.
Nicky Morgan's son is 8 and attends a state primary, so this is not a particularly profitable line of discussion.
And Grammars where ? May isn't going to put them in marginal seats is she ? Britain already has highly selective education ( via House Price ) in a system called Comprehensive which allows us all to pretend we don't have selection by House Price. Do we really think swing voters are going to tolerate their slightly dim children going to a Secondary Modern so some bright urchin from Benefits Street ( Good God, they might even be east European ) can get a better education ? After they've assembled the equity to secure a place in a great school ? Of course not. What Grammar expansion there will be will happen in the Shires with the odd high profile northern mill town with a high Brexit vote to distract critics. They'll be no where near marginal seats because aspirational voters aspire to advance their kids via their aspiration. Not have they held back by evidence based academic selection. May knows this.
@tlg86 I'm confused as to why people who have sent their offspring to private schools should not be allowed to have an opinion on grammars. My parents for instance...
If people want to send their kids to private schools that's their business - 7% do. That saves the state money, etc. etc. The problem, I have, is when politicians take a position on state schools but don't want their own kids anywhere near them. What would it take for Morgan to have sent her own son to one of her marvelous comps?
Personally I'm not sure the likes of Morgan are smart enough to make this connection, but the suspicion is that the rich don't like grammars as they create competition for their own privately educated children.
Once you have finished muckspreading, perhaps you might advise which school Nicky Morgan has chosen (the type will do given child protection). I assume you know given that you constructed a series of allegations based on your absolute knowledge.
Nicky Morgan's son is 8 and attends a state primary, so this is not a particularly profitable line of discussion.
@tlg86 I'm confused as to why people who have sent their offspring to private schools should not be allowed to have an opinion on grammars. My parents for instance...
If people want to send their kids to private schools that's their business - 7% do. That saves the state money, etc. etc. The problem, I have, is when politicians take a position on state schools but don't want their own kids anywhere near them. What would it take for Morgan to have sent her own son to one of her marvelous comps?
Personally I'm not sure the likes of Morgan are smart enough to make this connection, but the suspicion is that the rich don't like grammars as they create competition for their own privately educated children.
Once you have finished muckspreading, perhaps you might advise which school Nicky Morgan has chosen (the type will do given child protection). I assume you know given that you constructed a series of allegations based on your absolute knowledge.
Nicky Morgan's son is 8 and attends a state primary, so this is not a particularly profitable line of discussion.
She's said she'd consider a private education for him in future
@tlg86 I'm confused as to why people who have sent their offspring to private schools should not be allowed to have an opinion on grammars. My parents for instance...
If people want to send their kids to private schools that's their business - 7% do. That saves the state money, etc. etc. The problem, I have, is when politicians take a position on state schools but don't want their own kids anywhere near them. What would it take for Morgan to have sent her own son to one of her marvelous comps?
Personally I'm not sure the likes of Morgan are smart enough to make this connection, but the suspicion is that the rich don't like grammars as they create competition for their own privately educated children.
Once you have finished muckspreading, perhaps you might advise which school Nicky Morgan has chosen (the type will do given child protection). I assume you know given that you constructed a series of allegations based on your absolute knowledge.
Nicky Morgan's son is 8 and attends a state primary, so this is not a particularly profitable line of discussion.
I know (nice village). The muck-spreader doesn't.
Repeatedly name calling another really rather undermines your moral high-ground here.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
Quite. It all comes down to the different interpretations that Left and Right place on the concept of equality. The former places more weight on attempting to achieve equality of outcome, the latter upon equality of opportunity.
Or, to put it another way, Sir Michael Wilshaw objected to grammars on the Today programme this morning partly on the grounds that taking the smartest kids out of comprehensives would be detrimental to those left behind. A supporter of grammars might counter that the point of selection is to improve opportunity for the brightest children by not obliging them to share educational time and resources with the disruptive and the dim. Harsh but, in the view of many parents, perfectly fair.
I wonder what the percentage of parents is who will conclude that it's no great problem that kids get their shot at equality of opportunity aged 10.
My understanding is that what May has in mind is a system in which the 11-plus is not a single cut-off, and movement into the grammar schools will be possible at a later date. Beyond that, I dare say that not everybody will be happy, but I'll warrant that more will back the plans than oppose them.
@tlg86 I'm confused as to why people who have sent their offspring to private schools should not be allowed to have an opinion on grammars. My parents for instance...
If people want to send their kids to private schools that's their business - 7% do. That saves the state money, etc. etc. The problem, I have, is when politicians take a position on state schools but don't want their own kids anywhere near them. What would it take for Morgan to have sent her own son to one of her marvelous comps?
Personally I'm not sure the likes of Morgan are smart enough to make this connection, but the suspicion is that the rich don't like grammars as they create competition for their own privately educated children.
Once you have finished muckspreading, perhaps you might advise which school Nicky Morgan has chosen (the type will do given child protection). I assume you know given that you constructed a series of allegations based on your absolute knowledge.
Nicky Morgan's son is 8 and attends a state primary, so this is not a particularly profitable line of discussion.
I know (nice village). The muck-spreader doesn't.
But when education secretary she wouldn't rule it out. Not exactly a vote of confidence for her state sector is it?
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
I don't want to sound too cynical, but the fact that she will struggle to get it through and will probably fail makes it even better for her. A popular policy that is opposed by her opponents is good. But one whose shortcomings never have to be revealed is even better.
Mr. Sandpit (and others to whom it may concern), it seems PS4 mods for Skyrim and Fallout 4 are cancelled.
Bethesda's laid the blame at Sony's door.
That's rather disappointing. I'm not hugely into such things (to be honest, I'd probably just use a survival mode and better hair mods) but given Fallout 4 has had most sales on PS4, that's not great.
It must, surely, mean the PS4 Skyrim price should tumble.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
Quite. It all comes down to the different interpretations that Left and Right place on the concept of equality. The former places more weight on attempting to achieve equality of outcome, the latter upon equality of opportunity.
Or, to put it another way, Sir Michael Wilshaw objected to grammars on the Today programme this morning partly on the grounds that taking the smartest kids out of comprehensives would be detrimental to those left behind. A supporter of grammars might counter that the point of selection is to improve opportunity for the brightest children by not obliging them to share educational time and resources with the disruptive and the dim. Harsh but, in the view of many parents, perfectly fair.
I wonder what the percentage of parents is who will conclude that it's no great problem that kids get their shot at equality of opportunity aged 10.
My understanding is that what May has in mind is a system in which the 11-plus is not a single cut-off, and movement into the grammar schools will be possible at a later date. Beyond that, I dare say that not everybody will be happy, but I'll warrant that more will back the plans than oppose them.
As I say, it depends on the framing. "Your children get their shot at 10 and the chances are they will not make it" is not a great sell.
And Grammars where ? May isn't going to put them in marginal seats is she ? Britain already has highly selective education ( via House Price ) in a system called Comprehensive which allows us all to pretend we don't have selection by House Price. Do we really think swing voters are going to tolerate their slightly dim children going to a Secondary Modern so some bright urchin from Benefits Street ( Good God, they might even be east European ) can get a better education ? After they've assembled the equity to secure a place in a great school ? Of course not. What Grammar expansion there will be will happen in the Shires with the odd high profile northern mill town with a high Brexit vote to distract critics. They'll be no where near marginal seats because aspirational voters aspire to advance their kids via their aspiration. Not have they held back by evidence based academic selection. May knows this.
Of course - much like saying invoking A50 will not be put to the vote in the Commons, May does not actually mind whether she wins or loses. The point is to show that Tory right that she is on their side. And she is doing that because at some stage she is going to have to get serious about Brexit.
Speaking as a gay man, I find identity politics just as offputting when practised by rightwingers as when practised by leftwingers.
I find right wing identity politics more entertaining because they tend to be so lacking in self awareness of what they are doing. Closeted if you like. Where as left wing identity politics at least tends to be brazen and utterly without shame. Out and Proud if you like.
Speaking as a gay man, I find identity politics just as offputting when practised by rightwingers as when practised by leftwingers.
I find right wing identity politics more entertaining because they tend to be so lacking in self awareness of what they are doing. Closeted if you like. Where as left wing identity politics at least tends to be brazen and utterly without shame. Out and Proud if you like.
Surely to start a sentence "Speaking as a gay man..." is the quintessence of identity politics? Or is that the point?
Argh, too late to edit. Just wanted to add that I mention that in case anyone who's a big Fallout/Elder Scrolls fan was buying a console and wanted mods. It may never happen with the PS4.
Mr. Sandpit, I meant the PS4 Pro, rather than the slim.
Basically, it's not good enough to be a whole new console, and it's come out too soon to justify the expense. However, everyone with a PS4 now knows they've got the peasant version [not too happy about the risk of overheating my old model either].
But the real problem is strategic. Come the PS5, who will buy? You know a 5.5 may be out in a few years. Do you wait? I can't afford a console every 3 years or so. I don't know if I'd get a PS5 or wait. And if I wait, that'll likely be 10 years or so since the PS4, and I'm not sure whether I'll bother.
Consoles are meant to be convenience. Wait 7 years, buy one, plug in and play, the end. Those who want to spend more money for superior performance and incremental improvements can go PC. This feels like a crap No Man's Land. Not as good as a PC, but more expensive than the traditional console approach.
That's probably just me being grumpy. But there we are.
[And that's without getting into 4K TVs, VR, the VR peripherals].
Mr. F, yeah, I read she was rather attractive. Just as well, given how frisky she was.
I guess that TV technologies have moved faster than consoles in recent times, and there's a certain demographic of hardcore gamers who will always upgrade to the latest one, even if it's only a .5 release.
Are there not also new VR technologies which are enabled with the new Pro console, which were in danger of being lost to the PC market otherwise? I guess it makes sense for them to get one up on MS, who aren't doing the same with their XBone. There will only be one new console in the Christmas stockings this year.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
Quite. It all comes down to the different interpretations that Left and Right place on the concept of equality. The former places more weight on attempting to achieve equality of outcome, the latter upon equality of opportunity.
Or, to put it another way, Sir Michael Wilshaw objected to grammars on the Today programme this morning partly on the grounds that taking the smartest kids out of comprehensives would be detrimental to those left behind. A supporter of grammars might counter that the point of selection is to improve opportunity for the brightest children by not obliging them to share educational time and resources with the disruptive and the dim. Harsh but, in the view of many parents, perfectly fair.
I wonder what the percentage of parents is who will conclude that it's no great problem that kids get their shot at equality of opportunity aged 10.
My understanding is that what May has in mind is a system in which the 11-plus is not a single cut-off, and movement into the grammar schools will be possible at a later date. Beyond that, I dare say that not everybody will be happy, but I'll warrant that more will back the plans than oppose them.
As I say, it depends on the framing. "Your children get their shot at 10 and the chances are they will not make it" is not a great sell.
Oh absolutely, as with most things how you go about selling it is important. To paraphrase the Prime Minister, at the moment in much of England "Your children get their shot at 11 and the chances are only the ones whose parents can afford to service an enormous mortgage will make it." Which is a less than ideal system.
Selection is, for better or worse, already a reality. In any area where the schools aren't all equally good or poor, the families who can afford the expensive housing nearest to the good schools currently start out at an advantage. So, which form of selection is the least objectionable: selection by wealth, selection by ability, or selection by lottery? And which mechanism is likely to result in the best outcomes for the most able pupils?
Speaking as a gay man, I find identity politics just as offputting when practised by rightwingers as when practised by leftwingers.
I find right wing identity politics more entertaining because they tend to be so lacking in self awareness of what they are doing. Closeted if you like. Where as left wing identity politics at least tends to be brazen and utterly without shame. Out and Proud if you like.
Surely to start a sentence "Speaking as a gay man..." is the quintessence of identity politics? Or is that the point?
I thought that was the point the erudite and handsome Mr Meeks was making. But you'd have to ask him.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
Quite. It all comes down to the different interpretations that Left and Right place on the concept of equality. The former places more weight on attempting to achieve equality of outcome, the latter upon equality of opportunity.
Or, to put it another way, Sir Michael Wilshaw objected to grammars on the Today programme this morning partly on the grounds that taking the smartest kids out of comprehensives would be detrimental to those left behind. A supporter of grammars might counter that the point of selection is to improve opportunity for the brightest children by not obliging them to share educational time and resources with the disruptive and the dim. Harsh but, in the view of many parents, perfectly fair.
I wonder what the percentage of parents is who will conclude that it's no great problem that kids get their shot at equality of opportunity aged 10.
My understanding is that what May has in mind is a system in which the 11-plus is not a single cut-off, and movement into the grammar schools will be possible at a later date. Beyond that, I dare say that not everybody will be happy, but I'll warrant that more will back the plans than oppose them.
As I say, it depends on the framing. "Your children get their shot at 10 and the chances are they will not make it" is not a great sell.
What seems to be being lost in this debate is what kind of education is going to be required for the modern world. We constantly moan that there is a lack of technical education on the lines of German system - turning out skilled engineering type crafts people and then decide the solution to our problems is a type of school that is far more likely to focus on skills that get someone into Oxford to read History or Classics.
Speaking as a gay man, I find identity politics just as offputting when practised by rightwingers as when practised by leftwingers.
I find right wing identity politics more entertaining because they tend to be so lacking in self awareness of what they are doing. Closeted if you like. Where as left wing identity politics at least tends to be brazen and utterly without shame. Out and Proud if you like.
Surely to start a sentence "Speaking as a gay man..." is the quintessence of identity politics? Or is that the point?
I thought that was the point the erudite and handsome Mr Meeks was making. But you'd have to ask him.
I knew it ! It's like a post Pride ' Duckie ' I once went to called " Gay Shame " where folk used make up to pretend they'd been victims of Homophobic assaults.
Aren't these education proposals just a Green Paper?
In which case nothing is going to happen - and there aren't even going to be any votes in the Commons or Lords - for quite a long time - almost certainly after Article 50 has been invoked - by which time people's main focus will be elsewhere.
Mr. Sandpit (and others to whom it may concern), it seems PS4 mods for Skyrim and Fallout 4 are cancelled.
Bethesda's laid the blame at Sony's door.
That's rather disappointing. I'm not hugely into such things (to be honest, I'd probably just use a survival mode and better hair mods) but given Fallout 4 has had most sales on PS4, that's not great.
It must, surely, mean the PS4 Skyrim price should tumble.
No doubt they have their reasons for that decision but Skyrim is now a very old game, and one that was always weak in some areas. The user community mods can lift it into a whole new level of complexity and probably nearer to what it should have been in the first place (and I am not talking about the ability to have a few new haircuts).
I suppose the problem is that mods for consoles incur costs for the console makers but without corresponding revenue. Whereas for the game companies they are cost neutral and maybe a little advantageous.
You are going to have to face up to it one day, Mr. D., if you want good gaming then you are going to have to go the PC route. Consoles don't and cannot cut it in this modern age.
Aren't these education proposals just a Green Paper?
In which case nothing is going to happen - and there aren't even going to be any votes in the Commons or Lords - for quite a long time - almost certainly after Article 50 has been invoked - by which time people's main focus will be elsewhere.
Shhh ! They've been successfully distracted ! Don't give the game away.
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
If the Met follows up on just the rent boy scandal, I doubt this will come too much. Assuming that is that the Daily Mirror has revealed all the incriminating stuff there was on the tapes.
I get distracted easily enough online. (I once spent the best part of an hour contemplating how the properties of vanadium could fit into a potential future storyline). There's no way I'd get anything done if I payed on a PC. Plus, the cost is too much.
I am less fussed than others will be, but it's still stupid from Sony. They're not in an unassailable position. Rumour has it the Scorpio will kick the PS4 Pro's arse. Now they've annoyed every Bethesda fanboy. Just not smart.
"clare.malone: Is the number of undecideds right now on-track historically? Or is it out of the norm?
natesilver: No, it’s way higher, at least compared to recent elections. You have 18-20 percent of the electorate that’s either undecided or voting for one of the (largely anonymous) third-party candidates. That figure was like 5-10 percent at a comparable point four years ago. People largely ignore that, because they get focused on the margin between Clinton and Trump, when it’s maybe like the most important thing right now."
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
I pitched this thread for the PB masses.
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
I also assume it's no coincidence the Grammar school nonsense has been timed to coincide with ballot papers being out in the Labour leadership election. The bigger Corbyn's majority the better for May.
Aren't these education proposals just a Green Paper?
In which case nothing is going to happen - and there aren't even going to be any votes in the Commons or Lords - for quite a long time - almost certainly after Article 50 has been invoked - by which time people's main focus will be elsewhere.
Shhh ! They've been successfully distracted ! Don't give the game away.
What some people seem to be saying is that you shouldn't select children for a different education on the basis of their ability.
Or rather, you should not do so before they are around eighteen when they tend to be selected or not for university. Or, unless their parent have enough money to put them through a fee-paying school at any age.
Illogical as Spock would say.
So are they only arguing on what age we select at? That I would understand.
The alternative is already here. A grammar with admission for older children who show an aptitude later on. My grammar had kids joining later in life and that was in the 1960s.
Lets be honest here. This discussion is about selfishness. If my kid can't have it, no other kid should. That's why I find the fee-paying parents the most hypocritical of all - they want special treatment for their off-spring but not for others. I tend to be against private medicine for the same reason, but it's not a major issue for me.
Mr Eagles, I'm not sure why you would think Labour will vote against grammar schools and yet not want to veto fee-paying schools? Could you enlighten me? And yes, I know politicians epitomise hypocrisy, so I may have answered my own question.
@JohnO Theresa May has been quite careless in the way that she has left some pretty capable people with no realistic way back to office while she is Prime Minister. They have a powerful motive to see her flounder (and seem very keen on the plotting aspects of politics too).
I imagine Clem would have had a pithy response to the question 'why will Morgan not get back into government'.
On lines of 'not up to the job'. I can't recall the full quote or the name of the hapless minister.
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
I pitched this thread for the PB masses.
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
Not me - no problem with private education - it provides a perfect repository for the rich whose kids would probably fail to pass the 11+ to keep their kids away from the real world
I only partly jest as in my area this was precisely what happened year after year after year. Nigel Farage is not the only thicko whose parents sent to Dulwich college.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
I am not sure people do accept the difference. More to the point they would be right to think 80% not going is the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go. If the places aren't there, that 80% can't actually go to grammar school. The justification would be that the country only needs 20% of its children to be educated to that level. A pretty difficult justification to make, I would say.
0.000571%* of British people got to be part of Team GB at Rio 2016. The rest weren't talented enough or determined enough to do so, but they weren't 'denied the opportunity'.
I very much doubt it's anything to do with public opinion.
I think the Tories are going to expand selective education for the same reasons dogs lick their testicles - because they like it, and because they can.
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
I pitched this thread for the PB masses.
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
Not me - no problem with private education - it provides a perfect repository for the rich whose kids would probably fail to pass the 11+ to keep their kids away from the real world
I only partly jest as in my area this was precisely what happened year after year after year. Nigel Farage is not the only thicko whose parents sent to Dulwich college.
The entry exam for Dulwich was quite vigorous, according to my father - alumnus 1929>35.
@JohnO Theresa May has been quite careless in the way that she has left some pretty capable people with no realistic way back to office while she is Prime Minister. They have a powerful motive to see her flounder (and seem very keen on the plotting aspects of politics too).
I imagine Clem would have had a pithy response to the question 'why will Morgan not get back into government'.
On lines of 'not up to the job'. I can't recall the full quote or the name of the hapless minister.
John Parker, according to wikipedia. The longest serving labour mp. 48 years.
I get distracted easily enough online. (I once spent the best part of an hour contemplating how the properties of vanadium could fit into a potential future storyline). There's no way I'd get anything done if I payed on a PC. Plus, the cost is too much.
I am less fussed than others will be, but it's still stupid from Sony. They're not in an unassailable position. Rumour has it the Scorpio will kick the PS4 Pro's arse. Now they've annoyed every Bethesda fanboy. Just not smart.
Is the cost necessarily that much greater for gaming on a PC than a console? You have a PC already for business/writing use how much extra does it cost to get one that is up to spec for gaming, probably less than the cost of the console.
Time spent gaming is surely time spent gaming and it doesn't matter what machine you are playing on (a time sink is a time sink). Log out of the game on a PC and you are back to a business/writing bit of kit.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
The 80% that fail to get in then have to attend a school that is likely worse than if 100% were denied the opportunity of a grammar school in the first place.
So you have to take a gamble on whether your kid is one of the 20%. Otherwise your kid ends up worse off than if there was no grammar school at all.
There are two abiding shibboleths of the 'progressive' left. One is the European Union, the other is comprehensive education. Both are about to be trashed.
I'm happy you're taken advantage of your private education. I also have pity that you've foregone the advantages of a state education. It may bestow on you an intellectual confidence that the oiks lack, but it leaves you exposed to the wiles of a Cameron-like figure.
At least, you're not become a Jezzarite posho who automatically knows you know best. So we're thankful for such small mercies.
@JohnO Theresa May has been quite careless in the way that she has left some pretty capable people with no realistic way back to office while she is Prime Minister. They have a powerful motive to see her flounder (and seem very keen on the plotting aspects of politics too).
Her people (and I presume it was hers as people thought it made her look good and tough) talking about how brutally she cut Osborne diwn to size seemed a short term boost with potential but not guaranteed negatives.
How on earth can the Lib Dems really justify having over 100 Lords?
How can the Conservatives really justify their criminal irresponsibility at the last election, and ending up with a majority government while receiving the support of under 25% of the electorate?
Even as parody that woukd be so silly most supporters of electoral reform, myself for one, would find it comical.
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
I am not sure people do accept the difference. More to the point they would be right to think 80% not going is the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go. If the places aren't there, that 80% can't actually go to grammar school. The justification would be that the country only needs 20% of its children to be educated to that level. A pretty difficult justification to make, I would say.
0.000571%* of British people got to be part of Team GB at Rio 2016. The rest weren't talented enough or determined enough to do so, but they weren't 'denied the opportunity'.
366 athletes/64.1 million UK population
the majority (i suspect) believe that a decent education is a fundamental right, whereas representing your country at the olympics is not
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
Or, to put it another way, Sir Michael Wilshaw objected to grammars on the Today programme this morning partly on the grounds that taking the smartest kids out of comprehensives would be detrimental to those left behind. A supporter of grammars might counter that the point of selection is to improve opportunity for the brightest children by not obliging them to share educational time and resources with the disruptive and the dim. Harsh but, in the view of many parents, perfectly fair.
The irony is that if we ever had a full range of grammar scholls then it would take many of the smartest kids out of public schools which would be very detrimental to public schools.
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
I pitched this thread for the PB masses.
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
Not me - no problem with private education - it provides a perfect repository for the rich whose kids would probably fail to pass the 11+ to keep their kids away from the real world
I only partly jest as in my area this was precisely what happened year after year after year. Nigel Farage is not the only thicko whose parents sent to Dulwich college.
The entry exam for Dulwich was quite vigorous, according to my father - alumnus 1929>35.
It may have been then - but in SE London the Public schools are competing with a plethora of Grammar schools readily available and free for those who pass the entrance test. I worked in admissions for one from 1991 onwards - many who failed our tests subsequently enrolled there or in other Public schools in the area. The power of the chequebook in SE London was very powerful as relatively few in that part of the world were able to wield it.
Edit: I think you mean 'rigorous' rather than 'vigorous' - unless they tested on Rugby skills, etc!
Mr. Llama, I'm eking the work one out. And money is significantly sub-optimal.
I like having a massive dividing line between work and play, not to mention my technical aptitude is akin to that of a cabbage.
Fair enough. Stand by for a dinner invitation for the weekend of of the 25th by the way. Time to return the boy to Leeds and I feel a Brazilian meal coming on (though last time I was up he took me to a BBQ place (Red's) which was something of an experience).
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
I am not sure people do accept the difference. More to the point they would be right to think 80% not going is the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go. If the places aren't there, that 80% can't actually go to grammar school. The justification would be that the country only needs 20% of its children to be educated to that level. A pretty difficult justification to make, I would say.
0.000571%* of British people got to be part of Team GB at Rio 2016. The rest weren't talented enough or determined enough to do so, but they weren't 'denied the opportunity'.
366 athletes/64.1 million UK population
There was quite a funny bit from the olympics from JohnOliver,a very lefty comedian, criticising one of the opening speakers talking about how the olympics is about how we are all equal or something like that, when the point is we're not, and we hold the games to determine who's the best and literally make them stand on unequal podiums so one is higher than the rest.
Mr. Llama, I'm eking the work one out. And money is significantly sub-optimal.
I like having a massive dividing line between work and play, not to mention my technical aptitude is akin to that of a cabbage.
Fair enough. Stand by for a dinner invitation for the weekend of of the 25th by the way. Time to return the boy to Leeds and I feel a Brazilian meal coming on (though last time I was up he took me to a BBQ place (Red's) which was something of an experience).
Wow, that polling is, umm, pretty conclusive on the issue. Mrs May is clearly parking her tanks on the lawn of populist middle Britain.
It depends on the question. Do you think 80% of children should be denied the opportunity to attend the best state schools might get a different response. This is the issue.
Yes it would, but people appreciate that 80% not going isn't the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go.
I am not sure people do accept the difference. More to the point they would be right to think 80% not going is the same as 80% being denied the opportunity to go. If the places aren't there, that 80% can't actually go to grammar school. The justification would be that the country only needs 20% of its children to be educated to that level. A pretty difficult justification to make, I would say.
0.000571%* of British people got to be part of Team GB at Rio 2016. The rest weren't talented enough or determined enough to do so, but they weren't 'denied the opportunity'.
366 athletes/64.1 million UK population
There was quite a funny bit from the olympics from JohnOliver,a very lefty comedian, criticising one of the opening speakers talking about how the olympics is about how we are all equal or something like that, when the point is we're not, and we hold the games to determine who's the best and literally make them stand on unequal podiums so one is higher than the rest.
there's quite a funny routine from (I think) Doug Stanhope about how the olympics is basically just a genetics competition and we might as well just applaud the tallest (paraphrasing, obv)
@JohnO Theresa May has been quite careless in the way that she has left some pretty capable people with no realistic way back to office while she is Prime Minister. They have a powerful motive to see her flounder (and seem very keen on the plotting aspects of politics too).
Her people (and I presume it was hers as people thought it made her look good and tough) talking about how brutally she cut Osborne diwn to size seemed a short term boost with potential but not guaranteed negatives.
How on earth can the Lib Dems really justify having over 100 Lords?
How can the Conservatives really justify their criminal irresponsibility at the last election, and ending up with a majority government while receiving the support of under 25% of the electorate?
Even as parody that woukd be so silly most supporters of electoral reform, myself for one, would find it comical.
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
I pitched this thread for the PB masses.
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
People like me needed grammar schools to compete with people like TSE who were lucky enough to have a private education.
I'd agree with that piece but it ducks the really important and difficult question, namely what is a site "for profit"? Is it enough, as PB has, to have advertising banners on it to impose the higher duties or does it need to be a commercial website for a newspaper etc?
If the answer to the previous question is the former then this decision could have quite a chilling effect on discussion on the internet. If this was deemed a social media type site then people could relax. The more time I have spent looking at that the less clear I am what the answer is.
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
Clearly they have not heard of the parliament act - rather oddly given the amount Labour used it.
More difficult politically since it isn't in the manifesto. Perhaps May will instruct the Queen to de-enoble loads of Labour/LD peers?
Nothing in the parliament act limiting it to manifesto pledges. Think you are getting mixed up with the Salisbury convention that is basically a gentlemans agreement that the lords wont vote down manifesto committments.
Pretty sure some if not all of the war crimes act 1991, European Elections act 1999 and Sexual Offences Act 2000 were not manifesto commitments.
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
Clearly they have not heard of the parliament act - rather oddly given the amount Labour used it.
More difficult politically since it isn't in the manifesto. Perhaps May will instruct the Queen to de-enoble loads of Labour/LD peers?
Nothing in the parliament act limiting it to manifesto pledges. Think you are getting mixed up with the Salisbury convention that is basically a gentlemans agreement that the lords wont vote down manifesto committments.
Pretty sure some if not all of the war crimes act 1991, European Elections act 1999 and Sexual Offences Act 2000 were not manifesto commitments.
Yeah, hence why I caveated it by saying "difficult politically". The Lords will delay this to the fullest extent possible
I'd agree with that piece but it ducks the really important and difficult question, namely what is a site "for profit"? Is it enough, as PB has, to have advertising banners on it to impose the higher duties or does it need to be a commercial website for a newspaper etc?
If the answer to the previous question is the former then this decision could have quite a chilling effect on discussion on the internet. If this was deemed a social media type site then people could relax. The more time I have spent looking at that the less clear I am what the answer is.
National courts will now interpret. As a lawyer I guess it's an impossible one to second guess when advising a client. This will probably end up before the ECJ again. My base assumption for the UK is that courts will tend to lean to looking after copyright owners.
A good post on Guido saying that the Grammar school policy wouldn't have been announced until the conference had it not been snapped by photographers. Suspect No 10 now scrambling for new ideas for the keynote speech!
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
Clearly they have not heard of the parliament act - rather oddly given the amount Labour used it.
More difficult politically since it isn't in the manifesto. Perhaps May will instruct the Queen to de-enoble loads of Labour/LD peers?
Nothing in the parliament act limiting it to manifesto pledges. Think you are getting mixed up with the Salisbury convention that is basically a gentlemans agreement that the lords wont vote down manifesto committments.
Pretty sure some if not all of the war crimes act 1991, European Elections act 1999 and Sexual Offences Act 2000 were not manifesto commitments.
Yeah, hence why I caveated it by saying "difficult politically". The Lords will delay this to the fullest extent possible
The Lords can delay legislation for up to one year. The PM could flood the chamber with new Tory peers or perhaps restore the writ of summons to the hereditaries.
A good post on Guido saying that the Grammar school policy wouldn't have been announced until the conference had it not been snapped by photographers. Suspect No 10 now scrambling for new ideas for the keynote speech!
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
Clearly they have not heard of the parliament act - rather oddly given the amount Labour used it.
More difficult politically since it isn't in the manifesto. Perhaps May will instruct the Queen to de-enoble loads of Labour/LD peers?
Nothing in the parliament act limiting it to manifesto pledges. Think you are getting mixed up with the Salisbury convention that is basically a gentlemans agreement that the lords wont vote down manifesto committments.
Pretty sure some if not all of the war crimes act 1991, European Elections act 1999 and Sexual Offences Act 2000 were not manifesto commitments.
Yeah, hence why I caveated it by saying "difficult politically". The Lords will delay this to the fullest extent possible
The Lords can delay legislation for up to one year. The PM could flood the chamber with new Tory peers or perhaps restore the writ of summons to the hereditaries.
Two years, and I doubt May would flood the upper chamber to be honest.
A good post on Guido saying that the Grammar school policy wouldn't have been announced until the conference had it not been snapped by photographers. Suspect No 10 now scrambling for new ideas for the keynote speech!
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
I pitched this thread for the PB masses.
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
People like me needed grammar schools to compete with people like TSE who were lucky enough to have a private education.
It has been interesting to see the alliance between the left and the public school lobby in their rather disproportionate reaction to the creation of a little more selective as an option for the ordinary people. Very interesting.
A good post on Guido saying that the Grammar school policy wouldn't have been announced until the conference had it not been snapped by photographers. Suspect No 10 now scrambling for new ideas for the keynote speech!
Labour & Lib Dem Lords on the side of Private Schools & Elite Universities and against C1/C2 voters.....
Clearly they have not heard of the parliament act - rather oddly given the amount Labour used it.
More difficult politically since it isn't in the manifesto. Perhaps May will instruct the Queen to de-enoble loads of Labour/LD peers?
Nothing in the parliament act limiting it to manifesto pledges. Think you are getting mixed up with the Salisbury convention that is basically a gentlemans agreement that the lords wont vote down manifesto committments.
Pretty sure some if not all of the war crimes act 1991, European Elections act 1999 and Sexual Offences Act 2000 were not manifesto commitments.
Yeah, hence why I caveated it by saying "difficult politically". The Lords will delay this to the fullest extent possible
The Lords can delay legislation for up to one year. The PM could flood the chamber with new Tory peers or perhaps restore the writ of summons to the hereditaries.
A good post on Guido saying that the Grammar school policy wouldn't have been announced until the conference had it not been snapped by photographers. Suspect No 10 now scrambling for new ideas for the keynote speech!
Electoral reform.
I think it has to be - and indeed should be.
Not that drafted AV though. We had our once in a generation referendum about that.
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
I pitched this thread for the PB masses.
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
People like me needed grammar schools to compete with people like TSE who were lucky enough to have a private education.
No they don't. Many of us came from bog standard comprehensives.
I wonder if any PBers came from Secondary Moderns?
The polling finds more than twice as many people are in favour of creating more grammar schools or just keeping the current ones (55%) than scrapping existing grammar schools (23%)
But you didn't.
Instead you pretended 38 and 40 are statistically different......
Bottom of the class!
That expensive education gone to waste.....
Nah, it is the intellectual self confidence of a private education that allows me present the numbers thusly.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a set of figures presented so ineptly and to the detriment of your case as anyone [except maybe a Public school twit] can readily see.
I pitched this thread for the PB masses.
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
People like me needed grammar schools to compete with people like TSE who were lucky enough to have a private education.
No they don't. Many of us came from bog standard comprehensives.
I wonder if any PBers came from Secondary Moderns?
When you're one of the worst funded areas for state education in the country, you really do...
Jeremy Corbyn is to share a platform with a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Hamas sympathiser at the Stop the War Coalition conference next month. Fellow speaker Anas Altikriti has been described as “the key spokesman and lobbyist for the Brotherhood in Britain”. He has reportedly expressed sympathy with Hamas:
Jahadi jez the terrorist sympathizer doing everything possible to convince people those claims are untrue.
"Huge swing in that election and everybody else was down, UKIP by the largest amount. Elsewhere not UKIP's worst night."
Not surprised that Ukip is down in recent council elections. Since June 23rd (of blessed memory), their main reason for existing has vanished. They'll only reappear if St Theresa turns to the dark side.
Comments
Or, to put it another way, Sir Michael Wilshaw objected to grammars on the Today programme this morning partly on the grounds that taking the smartest kids out of comprehensives would be detrimental to those left behind. A supporter of grammars might counter that the point of selection is to improve opportunity for the brightest children by not obliging them to share educational time and resources with the disruptive and the dim. Harsh but, in the view of many parents, perfectly fair.
Personally I'm not sure the likes of Morgan are smart enough to make this connection, but the suspicion is that the rich don't like grammars as they create competition for their own privately educated children.
Basically, it's not good enough to be a whole new console, and it's come out too soon to justify the expense. However, everyone with a PS4 now knows they've got the peasant version [not too happy about the risk of overheating my old model either].
But the real problem is strategic. Come the PS5, who will buy? You know a 5.5 may be out in a few years. Do you wait? I can't afford a console every 3 years or so. I don't know if I'd get a PS5 or wait. And if I wait, that'll likely be 10 years or so since the PS4, and I'm not sure whether I'll bother.
Consoles are meant to be convenience. Wait 7 years, buy one, plug in and play, the end. Those who want to spend more money for superior performance and incremental improvements can go PC. This feels like a crap No Man's Land. Not as good as a PC, but more expensive than the traditional console approach.
That's probably just me being grumpy. But there we are.
[And that's without getting into 4K TVs, VR, the VR peripherals].
Mr. F, yeah, I read she was rather attractive. Just as well, given how frisky she was.
Bethesda's laid the blame at Sony's door.
That's rather disappointing. I'm not hugely into such things (to be honest, I'd probably just use a survival mode and better hair mods) but given Fallout 4 has had most sales on PS4, that's not great.
It must, surely, mean the PS4 Skyrim price should tumble.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/483/894/463.jpg
Anyway, back to work.
Are there not also new VR technologies which are enabled with the new Pro console, which were in danger of being lost to the PC market otherwise? I guess it makes sense for them to get one up on MS, who aren't doing the same with their XBone. There will only be one new console in the Christmas stockings this year.
Selection is, for better or worse, already a reality. In any area where the schools aren't all equally good or poor, the families who can afford the expensive housing nearest to the good schools currently start out at an advantage. So, which form of selection is the least objectionable: selection by wealth, selection by ability, or selection by lottery? And which mechanism is likely to result in the best outcomes for the most able pupils?
Scotland Yard to "assess and identify what criminal offences - if any" committed after claims involving MP Keith Vaz
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37321918
In which case nothing is going to happen - and there aren't even going to be any votes in the Commons or Lords - for quite a long time - almost certainly after Article 50 has been invoked - by which time people's main focus will be elsewhere.
Mosborough (Sheffield) result:
LDEM: 45.6% (+31.8)
LAB: 34.1% (-9.2)
UKIP: 12.4% (-9.8)
CON: 6.1% (-7.9)
GRN: 1.8% (-1.3)
I suppose the problem is that mods for consoles incur costs for the console makers but without corresponding revenue. Whereas for the game companies they are cost neutral and maybe a little advantageous.
You are going to have to face up to it one day, Mr. D., if you want good gaming then you are going to have to go the PC route. Consoles don't and cannot cut it in this modern age.
http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=4a2aeb95-1b20-4242-90f2-6adaf3da1ad5
https://www.qzzr.com/c/quiz/260927/legislation-in-parliament
I get distracted easily enough online. (I once spent the best part of an hour contemplating how the properties of vanadium could fit into a potential future storyline). There's no way I'd get anything done if I payed on a PC. Plus, the cost is too much.
I am less fussed than others will be, but it's still stupid from Sony. They're not in an unassailable position. Rumour has it the Scorpio will kick the PS4 Pro's arse. Now they've annoyed every Bethesda fanboy. Just not smart.
"clare.malone: Is the number of undecideds right now on-track historically? Or is it out of the norm?
natesilver: No, it’s way higher, at least compared to recent elections. You have 18-20 percent of the electorate that’s either undecided or voting for one of the (largely anonymous) third-party candidates. That figure was like 5-10 percent at a comparable point four years ago. People largely ignore that, because they get focused on the margin between Clinton and Trump, when it’s maybe like the most important thing right now."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-is-trump-gaining-on-clinton/
Great letter
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/Dear-Mark-I-am-writing-this-to-inform-you-that-I-shall-not-comply-with-your-requirement-to-remove-this-picture-604156b.html
I'm shocked by the politics of envy displayed by so many PBers. It is like being at a meeting of the SWP with so many of you obsessed about us former public schoolboys and schoolgirls.
So now presumably something else has to be cooked up to be the piece de resistance at conference.
Or rather, you should not do so before they are around eighteen when they tend to be selected or not for university. Or, unless their parent have enough money to put them through a fee-paying school at any age.
Illogical as Spock would say.
So are they only arguing on what age we select at? That I would understand.
The alternative is already here. A grammar with admission for older children who show an aptitude later on. My grammar had kids joining later in life and that was in the 1960s.
Lets be honest here. This discussion is about selfishness. If my kid can't have it, no other kid should. That's why I find the fee-paying parents the most hypocritical of all - they want special treatment for their off-spring but not for others. I tend to be against private medicine for the same reason, but it's not a major issue for me.
Mr Eagles, I'm not sure why you would think Labour will vote against grammar schools and yet not want to veto fee-paying schools? Could you enlighten me? And yes, I know politicians epitomise hypocrisy, so I may have answered my own question.
I only partly jest as in my area this was precisely what happened year after year after year. Nigel Farage is not the only thicko whose parents sent to Dulwich college.
366 athletes/64.1 million UK population
I think the Tories are going to expand selective education for the same reasons dogs lick their testicles - because they like it, and because they can.
Time spent gaming is surely time spent gaming and it doesn't matter what machine you are playing on (a time sink is a time sink). Log out of the game on a PC and you are back to a business/writing bit of kit.
So you have to take a gamble on whether your kid is one of the 20%. Otherwise your kid ends up worse off than if there was no grammar school at all.
I like having a massive dividing line between work and play, not to mention my technical aptitude is akin to that of a cabbage.
I'm happy you're taken advantage of your private education. I also have pity that you've foregone the advantages of a state education. It may bestow on you an intellectual confidence that the oiks lack, but it leaves you exposed to the wiles of a Cameron-like figure.
At least, you're not become a Jezzarite posho who automatically knows you know best. So we're thankful for such small mercies.
There seems to be a LD bounce across these local results. Real votes in real elections, etc.
Hmm.. could it be an excuse for an early election I wonder.
Edit: I think you mean 'rigorous' rather than 'vigorous' - unless they tested on Rugby skills, etc!
PM for you.
Elsewhere not UKIP's worst night.
If the answer to the previous question is the former then this decision could have quite a chilling effect on discussion on the internet. If this was deemed a social media type site then people could relax. The more time I have spent looking at that the less clear I am what the answer is.
Pretty sure some if not all of the war crimes act 1991, European Elections act 1999 and Sexual Offences Act 2000 were not manifesto commitments.
Lib Dem 1711
Labour 1279
UKIP 466
Con 229
Green 67
TL:DR Let's see what happens!
Not that drafted AV though. We had our once in a generation referendum about that.
I wonder if any PBers came from Secondary Moderns?
Jahadi jez the terrorist sympathizer doing everything possible to convince people those claims are untrue.
Elsewhere not UKIP's worst night."
Not surprised that Ukip is down in recent council elections. Since June 23rd (of blessed memory), their main reason for existing has vanished. They'll only reappear if St Theresa turns to the dark side.