I have checked to make sure the ruling is not being exaggerated but some of the effects include:
The CJEU states that: “when hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.” This places an unduly heavy burden on small businesses and bloggers who may not have the resources or the expertise to check the legality of every link they share.
Hobby bloggers who earn even a modest income from their work, such as by having ads on their blog, will now be legally responsible for ascertaining the copyright status of every item of external content they link to (photos on Flickr, music on Vimeo, etc.)
Small businesses which use Facebook for promotion will now need to check the copyright status of everything they share.
Who will be responsible for going back and checking all historical links to ensure none of them host copyright infringing content? This is clearly a legal and logistical nightmare scenario.
Good job we are leaving the EU and none of that shit will apply to us. That said, two thoughts:
1. Will the big boys really want to discourage links? Links drive traffic to their sites, do they want to stop that?
2. How the feck does the Eu think this can be enforced? Register your site off-shore and their silly rules are irrelevant.
Unfortunately not. Like the google privacy ruling it will apply to any site that can be viewed inside the EU. Offshoring won't work.
Really? The USA is going to be covered by this? I mean US citizens are going to governed by an EU court judgment? I don't think so.
No, it already works with google. Google have blocked certain links related to privacy issues from their European servers. That is why it is more difficult to access google.com now and you are always redirected to google.co.uk. Some links and news items have been deleted from the EU versions of google to allow them to comply with EU law.
I have checked to make sure the ruling is not being exaggerated but some of the effects include:
The CJEU states that: “when hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.” This places an unduly heavy burden on small businesses and bloggers who may not have the resources or the expertise to check the legality of every link they share.
Hobby bloggers who earn even a modest income from their work, such as by having ads on their blog, will now be legally responsible for ascertaining the copyright status of every item of external content they link to (photos on Flickr, music on Vimeo, etc.)
Small businesses which use Facebook for promotion will now need to check the copyright status of everything they share.
Who will be responsible for going back and checking all historical links to ensure none of them host copyright infringing content? This is clearly a legal and logistical nightmare scenario.
Good job we are leaving the EU and none of that shit will apply to us. That said, two thoughts:
1. Will the big boys really want to discourage links? Links drive traffic to their sites, do they want to stop that?
2. How the feck does the Eu think this can be enforced? Register your site off-shore and their silly rules are irrelevant.
It will apply until we take active steps to ensure that it does not. That means primary legislation. And in the UK, the copyright lobby is incredibly strong.
As a general point, none of our laws will change on Brexit until we decide that they are to change. That will be done through Parliament or, over time, through legal precedent - though you'd expect our courts to pay close attention to how courts in Europe apply laws they are being asked to apply.
Mr. Llama, that's what happened with the #VATmess.
The sale required the payment of VAT to the country in which the buyer resided, so even if it was an American granny selling a knitting pattern, if she did it to a Luxembourger then she's liable for the tax.
The EU are utterly ****ing incompetent.
Edited extra bit: I suspect most such grannies will be entirely unaware of this, and may just ignore it, but that's the law, as I understand it.
The EU is a bloated bureaucratic organisation. Therefore they believe that every problem has a solution that involves complicated (read: impractical) rules.
But there are no voters to kick them and say they are being stupid, so they just carry on.
That link confirms the ruling last week. The problem is you can see that the plantif had a reasonable case. But the way the ECJ ruling has been phrased means that it now applies to all cases not just blatant attempts to avoid copyright.
Yes, the particular case in question was a clear cut example of infringement, the guy made his own adult website by using the photos of others, then when Playboy sued him he said he just linked to what he found on the internet.
The problem is the president applies MUCH more generally, as the judgement was badly phrased. Good Wiki link from @rcs1000 by the way, explains a lot of specific technical terms in layman's language.
I have checked to make sure the ruling is not being exaggerated but some of the effects include:
The CJEU states that: “when hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.” This places an unduly heavy burden on small businesses and bloggers who may not have the resources or the expertise to check the legality of every link they share.
Hobby bloggers who earn even a modest income from their work, such as by having ads on their blog, will now be legally responsible for ascertaining the copyright status of every item of external content they link to (photos on Flickr, music on Vimeo, etc.)
Small businesses which use Facebook for promotion will now need to check the copyright status of everything they share.
Who will be responsible for going back and checking all historical links to ensure none of them host copyright infringing content? This is clearly a legal and logistical nightmare scenario.
Good job we are leaving the EU and none of that shit will apply to us. That said, two thoughts:
1. Will the big boys really want to discourage links? Links drive traffic to their sites, do they want to stop that?
2. How the feck does the Eu think this can be enforced? Register your site off-shore and their silly rules are irrelevant.
Unfortunately not. Like the google privacy ruling it will apply to any site that can be viewed inside the EU. Offshoring won't work.
Really? The USA is going to be covered by this? I mean US citizens are going to governed by an EU court judgment? I don't think so.
No, it already works with google. Google have blocked certain links related to privacy issues from their European servers. That is why it is more difficult to access google.com now and you are always redirected to google.co.uk. Some links and news items have been deleted from the EU versions of google to allow them to comply with EU law.
So if one is outside the Eu those blocks do not apply. Which is where I came in, we will be outside the EU and their rules will not apply to us.
Meanwhile if EU countries want to cut themselves off from international information who is that going to hurt? If companies such as, oh I don't know, say, Der Spiegel want to stop people linking to their site who is that going to hurt?
The whole thing is bonkers, unenforceable and won't apply to the UK.
I have checked to make sure the ruling is not being exaggerated but some of the effects include:
The CJEU states that: “when hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.” This places an unduly heavy burden on small businesses and bloggers who may not have the resources or the expertise to check the legality of every link they share.
Hobby bloggers who earn even a modest income from their work, such as by having ads on their blog, will now be legally responsible for ascertaining the copyright status of every item of external content they link to (photos on Flickr, music on Vimeo, etc.)
Small businesses which use Facebook for promotion will now need to check the copyright status of everything they share.
Who will be responsible for going back and checking all historical links to ensure none of them host copyright infringing content? This is clearly a legal and logistical nightmare scenario.
Good job we are leaving the EU and none of that shit will apply to us. That said, two thoughts:
1. Will the big boys really want to discourage links? Links drive traffic to their sites, do they want to stop that?
2. How the feck does the Eu think this can be enforced? Register your site off-shore and their silly rules are irrelevant.
Unfortunately not. Like the google privacy ruling it will apply to any site that can be viewed inside the EU. Offshoring won't work.
Since every site in the world 'can be viewed inside the EU' doesn't this mean that it would apply to e.g. American Websites.
I can't wait!
If that is the law, then the law is an ass. -- Mr Bumble
How does this judgment fit with the First Amendment in relation to US websites? I simply don't see the US courts taking kindly to such an extension of EU jurisdiction.
Perhaps one of our US posters might care to comment.
A purely hypothetical situation since Corbyn will never get within a million miles of becoming PM.
Chris Mullin, Tony Benn's right hand man in the 1980s, the "most hated man in Britain" then according to the Sun and author of "A Very British Coup", has enough political nous to know that. He's come out for Owen Smith.
I have checked to make sure the ruling is not being exaggerated but some of the effects include:
The CJEU states that: “when hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.” This places an unduly heavy burden on small businesses and bloggers who may not have the resources or the expertise to check the legality of every link they share.
Hobby bloggers who earn even a modest income from their work, such as by having ads on their blog, will now be legally responsible for ascertaining the copyright status of every item of external content they link to (photos on Flickr, music on Vimeo, etc.)
Small businesses which use Facebook for promotion will now need to check the copyright status of everything they share.
Who will be responsible for going back and checking all historical links to ensure none of them host copyright infringing content? This is clearly a legal and logistical nightmare scenario.
Good job we are leaving the EU and none of that shit will apply to us. That said, two thoughts:
1. Will the big boys really want to discourage links? Links drive traffic to their sites, do they want to stop that?
2. How the feck does the Eu think this can be enforced? Register your site off-shore and their silly rules are irrelevant.
It will apply until we take active steps to ensure that it does not. That means primary legislation. And in the UK, the copyright lobby is incredibly strong.
As a general point, none of our laws will change on Brexit until we decide that they are to change. That will be done through Parliament or, over time, through legal precedent - though you'd expect our courts to pay close attention to how courts in Europe apply laws they are being asked to apply.
As I said this is a bigger problem than just the EU. Corporate power is putting pressure on Governments around the world to take similar action. In this case the EU are just a bit ahead of the game.
Mr. Tyndall, so... if that goes ahead would all PB's old threads have to be deleted, because the process of hand-checking 12 years of threads is simply impossible? Will I have to delete my blog just in case there's a link that falls foul?
I doubt it because we are leaving, unless Mike is hosting the site on EU servers.
I have checked to make sure the ruling is not being exaggerated but some of the effects include:
The CJEU states that: “when hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.” This places an unduly heavy burden on small businesses and bloggers who may not have the resources or the expertise to check the legality of every link they share.
Hobby bloggers who earn even a modest income from their work, such as by having ads on their blog, will now be legally responsible for ascertaining the copyright status of every item of external content they link to (photos on Flickr, music on Vimeo, etc.)
Small businesses which use Facebook for promotion will now need to check the copyright status of everything they share.
Who will be responsible for going back and checking all historical links to ensure none of them host copyright infringing content? This is clearly a legal and logistical nightmare scenario.
Good job we are leaving the EU and none of that shit will apply to us. That said, two thoughts:
1. Will the big boys really want to discourage links? Links drive traffic to their sites, do they want to stop that?
2. How the feck does the Eu think this can be enforced? Register your site off-shore and their silly rules are irrelevant.
Unfortunately not. Like the google privacy ruling it will apply to any site that can be viewed inside the EU. Offshoring won't work.
Really? The USA is going to be covered by this? I mean US citizens are going to governed by an EU court judgment? I don't think so.
Not in any way that a judgement could be enforceable, no.
I've been canvassing opinion from my non school pals, most of whom are non grammar school educated and many parents; all support May and think the hypocrisy of benefitting from a grammar education but denying it for future generations pretty off.
Lucy Powell MP ✔ @LucyMPowell Justine Greening pulling out of @bbcquestiontime at the last minute is a pretty ominous sign for grammars policy I would say (good!)
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
That was the original idea, plus:
Again, just off the cuff thinking, how about this kind of system:
7 basics valued at 0.5 A-Levels - 3.5 total, done in the first two years 3 or 4 highers valued at 1.0 A-Levels - 6.5 or 7.5 total, done in the second two years.
Take this as an example Year 1/2 - English, Maths, Applied Science, History, Economics, Classics, French (3.5) Year 3/4 - English, History, Economics, Classics (4)
Total - 7.5
Or the science example:
Year 1/2 - English, Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Economics, Computing (3.5) Year 3/4 - Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Economics (4)
Total 7.5
That system taken over four years makes a lot more sense to me than our current system of cramming for 11 GCSEs in two years then 4 A-Levels in two years with no real grounding in the A-Levels given the disparity between the difficulty of GCSEs and A-Levels.
Interesting rumour - Seamas Milne is leaving Corbyn's team.
That has been rumoured for months. I am personally shocked, because he has handled his role so well I would have thought Corbyn would be desperate to keep some a savvy media operator....
The most recent rumblings has been that Paul Mason might be joining Team Cobryn media operation.
That link confirms the ruling last week. The problem is you can see that the plantif had a reasonable case. But the way the ECJ ruling has been phrased means that it now applies to all cases not just blatant attempts to avoid copyright.
Yes, the particular case in question was a clear cut example of infringement, the guy made his own adult website by using the photos of others, then when Playboy sued him he said he just linked to what he found on the internet.
The problem is the president applies MUCH more generally, as the judgement was badly phrased. Good Wiki link from @rcs1000 by the way, explains a lot of specific technical terms in layman's language.
The trouble is the Advocate General had a perfectly good answer to this which was to prosecute the site hosting the photos. Instead the ECJ decided to criminalise the link to the site. Hence the widespread implications.
I have checked to make sure the ruling is not being exaggerated but some of the effects include:
The CJEU states that: “when hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published.” This places an unduly heavy burden on small businesses and bloggers who may not have the resources or the expertise to check the legality of every link they share.
Hobby bloggers who earn even a modest income from their work, such as by having ads on their blog, will now be legally responsible for ascertaining the copyright status of every item of external content they link to (photos on Flickr, music on Vimeo, etc.)
Small businesses which use Facebook for promotion will now need to check the copyright status of everything they share.
Who will be responsible for going back and checking all historical links to ensure none of them host copyright infringing content? This is clearly a legal and logistical nightmare scenario.
Good job we are leaving the EU and none of that shit will apply to us. That said, two thoughts:
1. Will the big boys really want to discourage links? Links drive traffic to their sites, do they want to stop that?
2. How the feck does the Eu think this can be enforced? Register your site off-shore and their silly rules are irrelevant.
Unfortunately not. Like the google privacy ruling it will apply to any site that can be viewed inside the EU. Offshoring won't work.
Since every site in the world 'can be viewed inside the EU' doesn't this mean that it would apply to e.g. American Websites.
I can't wait!
If that is the law, then the law is an ass. -- Mr Bumble
How does this judgment fit with the First Amendment in relation to US websites? I simply don't see the US courts taking kindly to such an extension of EU jurisdiction.
Perhaps one of our US posters might care to comment.
Alas, the only US copyright law I have any inkling about relates to genetic material and is not really transferrable to this discussion, except that the US takes a radically different approach than, say, Australian law on genetic material copyright.
I have checked to make sure the ruling is not being exaggerated but some of the effects include:
The CJEU of every link they share.
Hobby bloggers who earn even a modest income from their work, such as by having ads on their blog, will now be legally responsible for ascertaining the copyright status of every item of external content they link to (photos on Flickr, music on Vimeo, etc.)
Small businesses which use Facebook for promotion will now need to check the copyright status of everything they share.
Who will be responsible for going back and checking all historical links to ensure none of them host copyright infringing content? This is clearly a legal and logistical nightmare scenario.
Good job we are leaving the EU and none of that shit will apply to us. That said, two thoughts:
1. Will the big boys really want to discourage links? Links drive traffic to their sites, do they want to stop that?
2. How the feck does the Eu think this can be enforced? Register your site off-shore and their silly rules are irrelevant.
It will apply until we take active steps to ensure that it does not. That means primary legislation. And in the UK, the copyright lobby is incredibly strong.
As a general point, none of our laws will change on Brexit until we decide that they are to change. That will be done through Parliament or, over time, through legal precedent - though you'd expect our courts to pay close attention to how courts in Europe apply laws they are being asked to apply.
As I said this is a bigger problem than just the EU. Corporate power is putting pressure on Governments around the world to take similar action. In this case the EU are just a bit ahead of the game.
Yep - of all the IP laws, copyright is the most insidious, IMO. It just goes far too far. The problem is, though, that the copyright lobby is extremely powerful and effective. Politicians just love hanging out with musicians, film stars etc, and will do their bidding. The UK is also home to a very strong copyright-reliant set of industries which carry a lot of weight. That goes across all areas, from film, TV and music to software and games.
Keep an eye on Iceland, though. The Pirate party may well win the general election there. If they do, you can probably expect a lot of companies to start hosting their sites from Reykjavik.
Max, can you repost your suggestion or perhaps link to it? I missed it when first posted. Thank you!
Can't seem to find them but this was the gist.
4-8 - primary school, learn the basics. Everyone leaves with the ability to read and write and do maths, plus understanding the environment around them.
9-13 - middle school, start off with mixed classes, this replaces secondary school. By the end of the 5 years the classes will be streamed. Basically about finding out what kids are good at, whether they are hands on, academic or just useless. 6 classes, streamed by ability.
14-18 - finishing school, top two classes from middle school go to "grammar" school to do A-Levels. The others go to apprentice school to, unsurprisingly given the name, an apprenticeship. They can range from trades such as carpentry and plumbing to accountancy and finance. By the end of the first year of apprentice school students and teachers pick what their apprenticeship will be.
We have that system already in Central Bedfordshire,
With the exception that the non grammar kids go to the 'grammar school' from 14 to 16 before going to Bedford College to do GNVQs in hairdressing or whatever from 16-18.
Certainly has merit but would be a huge and expensive shake up for anywhere that dosent still have middle schools
Lucy Powell MP ✔ @LucyMPowell Justine Greening pulling out of @bbcquestiontime at the last minute is a pretty ominous sign for grammars policy I would say (good!)
I don't see why, Tory voters and members are fully behind May and QT is not until tomorrow so who knows what schedule clash she may have
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
That was the original idea, plus:
Again, just off the cuff thinking, how about this kind of system:
7 basics valued at 0.5 A-Levels - 3.5 total, done in the first two years 3 or 4 highers valued at 1.0 A-Levels - 6.5 or 7.5 total, done in the second two years.
Take this as an example Year 1/2 - English, Maths, Applied Science, History, Economics, Classics, French (3.5) Year 3/4 - English, History, Economics, Classics (4)
Total - 7.5
Or the science example:
Year 1/2 - English, Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Economics, Computing (3.5) Year 3/4 - Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Economics (4)
Total 7.5
That system taken over four years makes a lot more sense to me than our current system of cramming for 11 GCSEs in two years then 4 A-Levels in two years with no real grounding in the A-Levels given the disparity between the difficulty of GCSEs and A-Levels.
Mr. Llama, that's what happened with the #VATmess.
The sale required the payment of VAT to the country in which the buyer resided, so even if it was an American granny selling a knitting pattern, if she did it to a Luxembourger then she's liable for the tax.
The EU are utterly ****ing incompetent.
Edited extra bit: I suspect most such grannies will be entirely unaware of this, and may just ignore it, but that's the law, as I understand it.
As far as I know the same principle applies to most countries that apply national sales taxes, including for example Canada and Australia
Mr. Observer, it's important people do get protection, though. It's not easy making money from writing (Mr. T is the rarest of things, a best-selling chap). To water down the copyright which allows an author to try and make a living would be horrendous.
As always, it's a question of balance. The idea I could slap ads onto my blog and then demand money from people who link to it is insane.
Mr. Llama, that's what happened with the #VATmess.
The sale required the payment of VAT to the country in which the buyer resided, so even if it was an American granny selling a knitting pattern, if she did it to a Luxembourger then she's liable for the tax.
The EU are utterly ****ing incompetent.
Edited extra bit: I suspect most such grannies will be entirely unaware of this, and may just ignore it, but that's the law, as I understand it.
An utterly stupid law.
I hope we zero rate digital books when we leave the EU.
That system taken over four years makes a lot more sense to me than our current system of cramming for 11 GCSEs in two years then 4 A-Levels in two years with no real grounding in the A-Levels given the disparity between the difficulty of GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'd strongly support this, so long as there is a route for all to our best universities. If you're a genius at computing, but suck (comparatively) at English, you should still be able to advance from your computing-focused senior school to Cambridge.
Max for EdSec... Justine Greening looked pretty grumpy on the front bench today. If she's not turning up to QT, perhaps there will be a vacancy shortly...
Yep - of all the IP laws, copyright is the most insidious, IMO. It just goes far too far. The problem is, though, that the copyright lobby is extremely powerful and effective. Politicians just love hanging out with musicians, film stars etc, and will do their bidding. The UK is also home to a very strong copyright-reliant set of industries which carry a lot of weight. That goes across all areas, from film, TV and music to software and games.
Keep an eye on Iceland, though. The Pirate party may well win the general election there. If they do, you can probably expect a lot of companies to start hosting their sites from Reykjavik.
The problem with banning links is that it limits the audience for websites, people will have a difficulty to find out that website xyz has written about a subject that they care.
That system taken over four years makes a lot more sense to me than our current system of cramming for 11 GCSEs in two years then 4 A-Levels in two years with no real grounding in the A-Levels given the disparity between the difficulty of GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'd strongly support this, so long as there is a route for all to our best universities. If you're a genius at computing, but suck (comparatively) at English, you should still be able to advance from your computing-focused senior school to Cambridge.
Max for EdSec... Justine Greening looked pretty grumpy on the front bench today. If she's not turning up to QT, perhaps there will be a vacancy shortly...
Yes, under my proposal the person you mention would go to grammar school and just have two years of English basic A-Level, plus the sciences, maths and computing the dumping English, keeping maths, physics, computing and one other subject.
Did I miss something. Never really got this 'difficulty gap' between A Levels and GCSEs.
No bigger gap than between yr 9 and 10...
Not now, GCSEs are all useless and A-Levels have been getting tougher. Not that it matters, GCSEs are useless anyway.
That said, maybe because I was lucky enough to benefit from a grammar education. First year at BNC wasn't exactly a huge step up difficulty wise either...
That link confirms the ruling last week. The problem is you can see that the plantif had a reasonable case. But the way the ECJ ruling has been phrased means that it now applies to all cases not just blatant attempts to avoid copyright.
Yes, the particular case in question was a clear cut example of infringement, the guy made his own adult website by using the photos of others, then when Playboy sued him he said he just linked to what he found on the internet.
The problem is the president applies MUCH more generally, as the judgement was badly phrased. Good Wiki link from @rcs1000 by the way, explains a lot of specific technical terms in layman's language.
The trouble is the Advocate General had a perfectly good answer to this which was to prosecute the site hosting the photos. Instead the ECJ decided to criminalise the link to the site. Hence the widespread implications.
Yes, but the EU court would not have jurisdiction over the (American) photo hosting site.
The suspicion in this case was that the respondent was also responsible for uploading the images to the hosting site, but they didn't seek to prove that. The judgement is completely nonsensical as it stands.
It was theoretically aimed at reducing tax avoidance by Amazon and other large companies by forcing them to pay 'proper' sales taxes rather than just registering in a low tax country.
In reality, it destroyed a lot of micro-businesses and forced those who wanted or had to continue to join large marketplaces who could handle all the tax for them (like Amazon...).
Labour are claiming the Minister for Grammar Schools has been pulled out of QT and replaced with a sceptical back bencher
Liberals like OGH and TSE may hate them, but they have no counter proposal of how to reform the education system.
Gove had some excellent reforms that were working their way into the system - parental choice, prioritise academic rigour and shut down failing schools. Mays dithering around is messing this all up.
Labour are claiming the Minister for Grammar Schools has been pulled out of QT and replaced with a sceptical back bencher
Liberals like OGH and TSE may hate them, but they have no counter proposal of how to reform the education system.
Gove had some excellent reforms that were working their way into the system - parental choice, prioritise academic rigour and shut down failing schools. Mays dithering around is messing this all up.
Labour are claiming the Minister for Grammar Schools has been pulled out of QT and replaced with a sceptical back bencher
It's a shame though, I support grammar schools because the present education system has failed.
Liberals like OGH and TSE may hate them, but they have no counter proposal of how to reform the education system.
I attended a grammar school 1964-71. Poor to very poor. At age 18, my colleagues from streamed city comprehensives were better educated and more prepared for a redbrick univ. science course.
One teacher had sought to persuade me to apply to Oxford (or Cambridge, where he'd done physics). But he had absolutely no support from the school for such ambitions. I didn't go. I would have done, with a bit more encouragement.
Labour are claiming the Minister for Grammar Schools has been pulled out of QT and replaced with a sceptical back bencher
It's a shame though, I support grammar schools because the present education system has failed.
Liberals like OGH and TSE may hate them, but they have no counter proposal of how to reform the education system.
I attended a grammar school 1964-71. Poor to very poor. At age 18, my colleagues from streamed city comprehensives were better educated and more prepared for a redbrick univ. science course.
One teacher had sought to persuade me to apply to Oxford (or Cambridge, where he'd done physics). But he had absolutely no support from the school for such ambitions. I didn't go. I would have done, with a bit more encouragement.
16% of Oxbridge pupils went to grammars, 5% overall
Comments
As a general point, none of our laws will change on Brexit until we decide that they are to change. That will be done through Parliament or, over time, through legal precedent - though you'd expect our courts to pay close attention to how courts in Europe apply laws they are being asked to apply.
http://www.tiffinschool.co.uk/_images/facilities/shop/Blazer.png
The EU is a bloated bureaucratic organisation. Therefore they believe that every problem has a solution that involves complicated (read: impractical) rules.
But there are no voters to kick them and say they are being stupid, so they just carry on.
The problem is the president applies MUCH more generally, as the judgement was badly phrased. Good Wiki link from @rcs1000 by the way, explains a lot of specific technical terms in layman's language.
Meanwhile if EU countries want to cut themselves off from international information who is that going to hurt? If companies such as, oh I don't know, say, Der Spiegel want to stop people linking to their site who is that going to hurt?
The whole thing is bonkers, unenforceable and won't apply to the UK.
Perhaps one of our US posters might care to comment.
Perhaps this would be "the least bad option."
A purely hypothetical situation since Corbyn will never get within a million miles of becoming PM.
Chris Mullin, Tony Benn's right hand man in the 1980s, the "most hated man in Britain" then according to the Sun and author of "A Very British Coup", has enough political nous to know that. He's come out for Owen Smith.
#thankgoodnessweareleaving
I've been canvassing opinion from my non school pals, most of whom are non grammar school educated and many parents; all support May and think the hypocrisy of benefitting from a grammar education but denying it for future generations pretty off.
Justine Greening pulling out of @bbcquestiontime at the last minute is a pretty ominous sign for grammars policy I would say (good!)
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff
9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects.
14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
That was the original idea, plus:
Again, just off the cuff thinking, how about this kind of system:
7 basics valued at 0.5 A-Levels - 3.5 total, done in the first two years
3 or 4 highers valued at 1.0 A-Levels - 6.5 or 7.5 total, done in the second two years.
Take this as an example
Year 1/2 - English, Maths, Applied Science, History, Economics, Classics, French (3.5)
Year 3/4 - English, History, Economics, Classics (4)
Total - 7.5
Or the science example:
Year 1/2 - English, Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Economics, Computing (3.5)
Year 3/4 - Maths, Chemistry, Physics, Economics (4)
Total 7.5
That system taken over four years makes a lot more sense to me than our current system of cramming for 11 GCSEs in two years then 4 A-Levels in two years with no real grounding in the A-Levels given the disparity between the difficulty of GCSEs and A-Levels.
The most recent rumblings has been that Paul Mason might be joining Team Cobryn media operation.
Keep an eye on Iceland, though. The Pirate party may well win the general election there. If they do, you can probably expect a lot of companies to start hosting their sites from Reykjavik.
With the exception that the non grammar kids go to the 'grammar school' from 14 to 16 before going to Bedford College to do GNVQs in hairdressing or whatever from 16-18.
Certainly has merit but would be a huge and expensive shake up for anywhere that dosent still have middle schools
Liberals like OGH and TSE may hate them, but they have no counter proposal of how to reform the education system.
Been away for a while, is she walking unaided yet – still breathing?
As always, it's a question of balance. The idea I could slap ads onto my blog and then demand money from people who link to it is insane.
I hope we zero rate digital books when we leave the EU.
Max for EdSec...
Justine Greening looked pretty grumpy on the front bench today. If she's not turning up to QT, perhaps there will be a vacancy shortly...
No bigger gap than between yr 9 and 10...
The suspicion in this case was that the respondent was also responsible for uploading the images to the hosting site, but they didn't seek to prove that. The judgement is completely nonsensical as it stands.
It was theoretically aimed at reducing tax avoidance by Amazon and other large companies by forcing them to pay 'proper' sales taxes rather than just registering in a low tax country.
In reality, it destroyed a lot of micro-businesses and forced those who wanted or had to continue to join large marketplaces who could handle all the tax for them (like Amazon...).
It was spectacularly ill-considered.
One teacher had sought to persuade me to apply to Oxford (or Cambridge, where he'd done physics). But he had absolutely no support from the school for such ambitions. I didn't go. I would have done, with a bit more encouragement.