Mr C, I think it is more specialised than doing a degree, perhaps orientated to the firm's specialised areas. A law degree will still require the person to go to law school afterwards for a year anyway and then doing their training (used to be called articled clerk). You have to question whether a law degree is really worth the money.
I think it's been a given for a while that a law degree isn't very useful. At one point, when I was about 17 and had no idea what I was going to 'do', my father suggested law, but as a 'scientist' I'd dropped both History and Latin at the end of the Third Form, so that wasn't really a runner. However, later in life I came across three pharmacists who had, once they'd got their pharmacy degrees, done a conversion course...... which I think was the one year at law school, but might have been more....... and did very well.
Most people don’t need to go to university. It is one of the rackets of modern life, although it is rather taboo to say so because It sounds like elitism.
A PPE doesn't seem as though it trains anyone to be very useful.
I am no more useless now than I was before 'reading' PPE!
Is that because you didn't read it too closely?
That's right - I just skipped all of the difficult words.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Mr C, I think it is more specialised than doing a degree, perhaps orientated to the firm's specialised areas. A law degree will still require the person to go to law school afterwards for a year anyway and then doing their training (used to be called articled clerk). You have to question whether a law degree is really worth the money.
I think it's been a given for a while that a law degree isn't very useful. At one point, when I was about 17 and had no idea what I was going to 'do', my father suggested law, but as a 'scientist' I'd dropped both History and Latin at the end of the Third Form, so that wasn't really a runner. However, later in life I came across three pharmacists who had, once they'd got their pharmacy degrees, done a conversion course...... which I think was the one year at law school, but might have been more....... and did very well.
Most people don’t need to go to university. It is one of the rackets of modern life, although it is rather taboo to say so because It sounds like elitism.
A PPE doesn't seem as though it trains anyone to be very useful.
I am no more useless now than I was before 'reading' PPE!
An engineering degree might have been more useful for you this morning.
Mr C, I think it is more specialised than doing a degree, perhaps orientated to the firm's specialised areas. A law degree will still require the person to go to law school afterwards for a year anyway and then doing their training (used to be called articled clerk). You have to question whether a law degree is really worth the money.
I think it's been a given for a while that a law degree isn't very useful. At one point, when I was about 17 and had no idea what I was going to 'do', my father suggested law, but as a 'scientist' I'd dropped both History and Latin at the end of the Third Form, so that wasn't really a runner. However, later in life I came across three pharmacists who had, once they'd got their pharmacy degrees, done a conversion course...... which I think was the one year at law school, but might have been more....... and did very well.
Most people don’t need to go to university. It is one of the rackets of modern life, although it is rather taboo to say so because It sounds like elitism.
A PPE doesn't seem as though it trains anyone to be very useful.
I am no more useless now than I was before 'reading' PPE!
There are always exceptions! Didn't Chris Huhne, in his first 'newspaper' job after graduating with a PPE find it mistaken for a PE degree?
Mr. NorthWales, I wouldn't mind the glorious thespians giving themselves congratulatory gold statuettes to celebrate their own magnificence if they didn't cram in all the political bullshit as well.
Didn't someone once say that politics is show business for ugly people? When you look at Jeremy Corbyn, Arlene Foster and David Davis you can't deny it is a good quip.
Arlene Foster was good looking in her twenties. Some people age very rapidly.
Sean Fear has unusual taste in women. Admittedly, Arlene not quite in her 20s here, but not far off.
There is something distasteful about Remainer posters treating female politicians as candidates for the Miss Pb.com Beauty Competition.
Said the grump of Llanshitty.
I'm simply pointing out what the Face of Remainerdom is like on pb.com.
"Save Our Universities for the Elite, Most Don't need to Go."
"Let's Grade all our Female Politicians on whether they're Good-Looking."
"Let Me Boast about How My Kids have a Nanny."
And, then, Gardenwanker, you are puzzled as to why Remain Lost.
Haha.
You mischaracterise my views, but I’m flattered you remember I employ a nanny. However, the main boasting on this board tends to be by certain Brexiters about their first class travel arrangements, so I think the political point you are making is a bit shit.
Mr. B, if that's accurate, I wonder where Red Bull stand.
Leclerc top 3 *might* be a value bet. But hard to say.
Leclerc e/w for top 3 *is* a value bet. So is Bottas for the same bet. - it’s how e/w bets work, the priced odds are for the win and the chances of either them coming third are way better than than the e/w ‘divider’. Bookies really don’t like people taking advantage of e/w bets like this.
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Mr C, I think it is more specialised than doing a degree, perhaps orientated to the firm's specialised areas. A law degree will still require the person to go to law school afterwards for a year anyway and then doing their training (used to be called articled clerk). You have to question whether a law degree is really worth the money.
I think it's been a given for a while that a law degree isn't very useful. At one point, when I was about 17 and had no idea what I was going to 'do', my father suggested law, but as a 'scientist' I'd dropped both History and Latin at the end of the Third Form, so that wasn't really a runner. However, later in life I came across three pharmacists who had, once they'd got their pharmacy degrees, done a conversion course...... which I think was the one year at law school, but might have been more....... and did very well.
Most people don’t need to go to university. It is one of the rackets of modern life, although it is rather taboo to say so because It sounds like elitism.
A PPE doesn't seem as though it trains anyone to be very useful.
I am no more useless now than I was before 'reading' PPE!
There are always exceptions! Didn't Chris Huhne, in his first 'newspaper' job after graduating with a PPE find it mistaken for a PE degree?
Where I work PPE means Personal Protective Equipment. A degree in hi-viz.
Mr C, I think it is more specialised than doing a degree, perhaps orientated to the firm's specialised areas. A law degree will still require the person to go to law school afterwards for a year anyway and then doing their training (used to be called articled clerk). You have to question whether a law degree is really worth the money.
I think it's been a given for a while that a law degree isn't very useful. At one point, when I was about 17 and had no idea what I was going to 'do', my father suggested law, but as a 'scientist' I'd dropped both History and Latin at the end of the Third Form, so that wasn't really a runner. However, later in life I came across three pharmacists who had, once they'd got their pharmacy degrees, done a conversion course...... which I think was the one year at law school, but might have been more....... and did very well.
Most people don’t need to go to university. It is one of the rackets of modern life, although it is rather taboo to say so because It sounds like elitism.
To be honest I would prefer people who can solve problems at 18 to anyone at 21. The typical degree apprentice I see at the companies I visit is far more interesting than the graduate on a scheme 3 years older.
My elder son left school at 16 and did a 'classic' electronic engineering apprenticeship, then at 21 or so decided to get a degree. Which he did. He is now, sometimes, as a senior manager in a high tech industry, faced with young graduates who can prepare something in theory, but when he tells them to go away and make it to be sure it works are lost.
Michael Crichton was a bit of a nutter in some ways but I did find his theory, spread across several of his books, notably Airframe, about the discipline of manufacturing and the inevitable failure of design that is too far separated from it highly persuasive.
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
It was a deduction based on the stupidity of your argument, it's incoherence and your ability to know how to use a capital U. Combine this with the fact that you are a headbanging Brexit zealot, I would say that one does not need the detective powers of Sherlock to say that the balance of probability is that you did not go there, or did you ever have the capability to go. Sure you could pretend otherwise, and I accept I cannot prove it either way.
Mr. Sandpit, 6.5 is a bit tight, though. 8.5, as he was pre-testing, would be more tempting.
Given I got a bit carried away last time with little bets (although the 61 each way on Raikkonen mitigated my losses) I think I'll just stick with my small sum on Gasly.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
It was a deduction based on the stupidity of your argument, it's incoherence and your ability to know how to use a capital U. Combine this with the fact that you are a headbanging Brexit zealot, I would say that one does not need the detective powers of Sherlock to say that the balance of probability is that you did not go there, or did you ever have the capability to go. Sure you could pretend otherwise, and I accept I cannot prove it either way.
I have no idea whether the mad Bard went to university at all, but he does seem quite consumed with hatred for his fellow man.
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Mr C, I think it is more specialised than doing a degree, perhaps orientated to the firm's specialised areas. A law degree will still require the person to go to law school afterwards for a year anyway and then doing their training (used to be called articled clerk). You have to question whether a law degree is really worth the money.
I think it's been a given for a while that a law degree isn't very useful. At one point, when I was about 17 and had no idea what I was going to 'do', my father suggested law, but as a 'scientist' I'd dropped both History and Latin at the end of the Third Form, so that wasn't really a runner. However, later in life I came across three pharmacists who had, once they'd got their pharmacy degrees, done a conversion course...... which I think was the one year at law school, but might have been more....... and did very well.
Most people don’t need to go to university. It is one of the rackets of modern life, although it is rather taboo to say so because It sounds like elitism.
To be honest I would prefer people who can solve problems at 18 to anyone at 21. The typical degree apprentice I see at the companies I visit is far more interesting than the graduate on a scheme 3 years older.
My elder son left school at 16 and did a 'classic' electronic engineering apprenticeship, then at 21 or so decided to get a degree. Which he did. He is now, sometimes, as a senior manager in a high tech industry, faced with young graduates who can prepare something in theory, but when he tells them to go away and make it to be sure it works are lost.
Michael Crichton was a bit of a nutter in some ways but I did find his theory, spread across several of his books, notably Airframe, about the discipline of manufacturing and the inevitable failure of design that is too far separated from it highly persuasive.
A major problem with university is when people think it makes them automatically better than those who do not have a degree - as if a third in comparative underwear studies makes them more worthy than, and able to talk down to, someone who went to work in an office aged 18 and worked their way up.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
It was a deduction based on the stupidity of your argument, it's incoherence and your ability to know how to use a capital U. Combine this with the fact that you are a headbanging Brexit zealot, I would say that one does not need the detective powers of Sherlock to say that the balance of probability is that you did not go there, or did you ever have the capability to go. Sure you could pretend otherwise, and I accept I cannot prove it either way.
Based on a quick Google, I have concluded that @YBarddCwsc may not have been to Cambridge University, but (s)he was definitely published by them:
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
It was a deduction based on the stupidity of your argument, it's incoherence and your ability to know how to use a capital U. Combine this with the fact that you are a headbanging Brexit zealot, I would say that one does not need the detective powers of Sherlock to say that the balance of probability is that you did not go there, or did you ever have the capability to go. Sure you could pretend otherwise, and I accept I cannot prove it either way.
I have no idea whether the mad Bard went to university at all, but he does seem quite consumed with hatred for his fellow man.
It is not the case with all Brexit supporters. There are one or two pleasant ones, even on this forum.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
With the discussion of student loads and graduate taxes, one of the benefits of the current system that any change needs to take into account is that increasing numbers of people are choosing to spend time living abroad and out of the UK income tax system.
The real elephant in the room is EU students who disappear the day they graduate, with a ‘loan’ that can’t be collected in any conventional sense.
A messy ‘half way house’ between government and priveate funding just doesn’t work in practice, but the problems are decades down the line.
Tertiary education is one of few areas where the USA have a very good model, with community colleges, state universities and the Ivy League, with different funding models across all three.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
It would appear from Wikipedia that there are two British, plus an outpost of Harvard. I didn't go to Harvard!
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
I don't want to intrude on your conversation, but as an observer may I ask if "just outside Cambridge" qualifies as "in Cambridge"?
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
You missed one:
The Open University in the East of England 12 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 1PF
Talking of female politicians' looks, which we were, can I say I thought Mrs Soubry was looking less like Mrs Rochester now she's gone tiggery. Perhaps it's doing her good?
Mr C, I think it is more specialised than doing a degree, perhaps orientated to the firm's specialised areas. A law degree will still require the person to go to law school afterwards for a year anyway and then doing their training (used to be called articled clerk). You have to question whether a law degree is really worth the money.
I think it's been a given for a while that a law degree isn't very useful. At one point, when I was about 17 and had no idea what I was going to 'do', my father suggested law, but as a 'scientist' I'd dropped both History and Latin at the end of the Third Form, so that wasn't really a runner. However, later in life I came across three pharmacists who had, once they'd got their pharmacy degrees, done a conversion course...... which I think was the one year at law school, but might have been more....... and did very well.
Most people don’t need to go to university. It is one of the rackets of modern life, although it is rather taboo to say so because It sounds like elitism.
A PPE doesn't seem as though it trains anyone to be very useful.
I am no more useless now than I was before 'reading' PPE!
There are always exceptions! Didn't Chris Huhne, in his first 'newspaper' job after graduating with a PPE find it mistaken for a PE degree?
Where I work PPE means Personal Protective Equipment. A degree in hi-viz.
LOL, glad to know it’s not just me who gets those confused. Every week or so I sign a “PPE Form” for a customer who insists on everyone wearing ear defenders and yellow vests in their server room.
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
I don't want to intrude on your conversation, but as an observer may I ask if "just outside Cambridge" qualifies as "in Cambridge"?
The are five distinct universities in Cambridge, as I said. The five lie within the boundaries of Cambridge, Mass and Cambridge City, UK.
Brandeis, Tufts, Boston Uni and Boston College are outside the boundary of Cambridge, so I quite properly haven't included them in my arithmetic.
Mr C, I think it is more specialised than doing a degree, perhaps orientated to the firm's specialised areas. A law degree will still require the person to go to law school afterwards for a year anyway and then doing their training (used to be called articled clerk). You have to question whether a law degree is really worth the money.
I think it's been a given for a while that a law degree isn't very useful. At one point, when I was about 17 and had no idea what I was going to 'do', my father suggested law, but as a 'scientist' I'd dropped both History and Latin at the end of the Third Form, so that wasn't really a runner. However, later in life I came across three pharmacists who had, once they'd got their pharmacy degrees, done a conversion course...... which I think was the one year at law school, but might have been more....... and did very well.
Most people don’t need to go to university. It is one of the rackets of modern life, although it is rather taboo to say so because It sounds like elitism.
A PPE doesn't seem as though it trains anyone to be very useful.
I am no more useless now than I was before 'reading' PPE!
An engineering degree might have been more useful for you this morning.
Got one of those.
A degree of patience served me well.
Very good. And way more useful than most other degrees too.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
I don't want to intrude on your conversation, but as an observer may I ask if "just outside Cambridge" qualifies as "in Cambridge"?
The are five distinct universities in Cambridge, as I said. The five lie within the boundaries of Cambridge, Mass and Cambridge City, UK.
Brandeis, Tufts, Boston Uni and Boston College are outside the boundary of Cambridge, so I quite properly haven't included them in my arithmetic.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
Well done for your Wiki research. Further evidence of weak and disconnected argument though (1 out of 10 marks), that further strengthens my proposition.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
How can you sense whether a poster went to Cambridge University or not?
Do tell.
I went to university in Cambridge.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
The first three lines of your post were good. The last one suggested that if you have a university education it didn't do you much good. By-the-way, university does not need a capital U, unless you are referring to a proper noun, eg. Cambridge University, where you, no doubt, did not go.
Do tell.
There are five Universities in Cambridge.
Haha really? There are, I think, 15 or 16 "old" colleges and a similar number of "new" that make up Cambridge University. There is also Anglia Ruskin University. Where you got 5 from I am really not sure. Still, it confirms my not too difficult deduction.
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge University.
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
Well done for your Wiki research. Further evidence of weak and disconnected argument though (1 out of 10 marks), that further strengthens my proposition.
Anglia Ruskin (known to some as Almost a Real University) also has a large campus in Chelmsford and smaller ones in the Southend area.
How many times do they have to be told that no deal can’t be scrapped? It’s whats already been legislated for, and is the live “Plan A” in the absence of other *positive* action.
It’s not enough to be in favour of the double negative no no deal, they have to be either in favour of a specific deal, or in favour of ignoring the people and revoking A50?
Its not speeding, its attempting to pervert the course of justice with the aggravation of being a solicitor and an MP. I can understand why the AG office feels its a bit political and doesn't want to touch it but that sentence was a joke.
I think most of us on here agreed that at the time; regardless it is a high bar and I'm not surprised it wasn't changed. Perhaps the lawyers here can advise as to whether it could be increased on the basis of her appeal, if the Court of Appeal think it was frivolous?
If she appeals against conviction, No, she can't get longer.
And if she appeals against the sentence instead/as well?
No. (That's the short answer; it is rare but possible for steps to be taken in effect to increase sentence by discounting some time served).
The AG can bring an appeal to lengthen sentence, and it does sometimes happen but that is different.
So when May says she hopes there won't be any need for an extension, what does that mean? That she thinks the threat of an extension will be sufficient to force the Brexiteers into line, so that she won't need to ask for an extension until the Commons has passed the deal?
Does she think there's time to leave with a deal by 29 March? Or does she just think everyone else is stupid enough to believe that? Doesn't saying unbelievable things all the time tend to damage your credibility?
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
Well done for your Wiki research. Further evidence of weak and disconnected argument though (1 out of 10 marks), that further strengthens my proposition.
I can't decide which hypothesis is creepier: that you went to Cambridge and came away with nothing to show for it but a propensity to sneer at people who didn't, or that you did not go there and are an over enthusiastic fanboy wannabe with your nose pressed against the academic shop window. Unattractive either way. Stop embarrassing yourself.
But after reading it, I'm not clear who actually decides whether a bill needs royal consent. The Speaker?
I read it that any back bencher bill needs a minister to present it to her maj for signing, so they can stop it at that stage. It's also saying, Cooper's bill is unconstitutional anyway.
I think the author was presenting it as a requirement for bills that affected the royal prerogative, rather than something that would be needed for all private members' bills.
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
Weightwatchers
Real Labour.
The Corbyn part can be "Continuity Labour"
Well, it won't be the Judean Peoples Labour Party, will it.
How many times do they have to be told that no deal can’t be scrapped? It’s whats already been legislated for, and is the live “Plan A” in the absence of other *positive* action.
It’s not enough to be in favour of the double negative no no deal, they have to be either in favour of a specific deal, or in favour of ignoring the people and revoking A50?
It's really not that complicated is it? The main purpose of no deal at this point seems to be to give people something else to be positively against. The more things you positively oppose and the more voraciously you do it the less time there is to discuss what you are positively for. And that seems to suit our political class just fine.
Well done for your Wiki research. Further evidence of weak and disconnected argument though (1 out of 10 marks), that further strengthens my proposition.
I can't decide which hypothesis is creepier: that you went to Cambridge and came away with nothing to show for it but a propensity to sneer at people who didn't, or that you did not go there and are an over enthusiastic fanboy wannabe with your nose pressed against the academic shop window. Unattractive either way. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'll leave embarrassing oneself to tw*ts like you that still think Brexit was a good idea!
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
Weightwatchers
Real Labour.
The Corbyn part can be "Continuity Labour"
Well, it won't be the Judean Peoples Labour Party, will it.
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
Well done for your Wiki research. Further evidence of weak and disconnected argument though (1 out of 10 marks), that further strengthens my proposition.
I can't decide which hypothesis is creepier: that you went to Cambridge and came away with nothing to show for it but a propensity to sneer at people who didn't, or that you did not go there and are an over enthusiastic fanboy wannabe with your nose pressed against the academic shop window. Unattractive either way. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'll leave embarrassing oneself to tw*ts like you that still think Brexit was a good idea!
?
I thought in 2016 that brexit was probably a slightly bad idea, so I voted against it, and I think in 2019 that it was probably the worst idea anyone has ever had. Some mistake.
I take it you are confirming the fanboy hypothesis. Eeeeuw.
Mr. Pulpstar, but what biscuits? Oreos? Ginger snaps? Garibaldis? Bourbons? Are jaffa cakes allowed?
Personally, I'd have a bowl of jelly babies ready.
It's a quagmire I tell you.
Jelly babies upset the vegetarians/vegans even if it makes the ex Tories feel more at home. Garibaldi was a bit radical? Bourbons just a bit too close to the mark. Ginger snaps reminds those present that none of them have half the wit of the late, great Robin Cook. Jaffa cakes are probably ok but what if Corbyn comes in for a visit?
Mr. Pulpstar, but what biscuits? Oreos? Ginger snaps? Garibaldis? Bourbons? Are jaffa cakes allowed?
Personally, I'd have a bowl of jelly babies ready.
It's a quagmire I tell you.
Jelly babies upset the vegetarians/vegans even if it makes the ex Tories feel more at home. Garibaldi was a bit radical? Bourbons just a bit too close to the mark. Ginger snaps reminds those present that none of them have half the wit of the late, great Robin Cook. Jaffa cakes are probably ok but what if Corbyn comes in for a visit?
How many times do they have to be told that no deal can’t be scrapped? It’s whats already been legislated for, and is the live “Plan A” in the absence of other *positive* action.
It’s not enough to be in favour of the double negative no no deal, they have to be either in favour of a specific deal, or in favour of ignoring the people and revoking A50?
It's really not that complicated is it? The main purpose of no deal at this point seems to be to give people something else to be positively against. The more things you positively oppose and the more voraciously you do it the less time there is to discuss what you are positively for. And that seems to suit our political class just fine.
Indeed. And with both the UK and EU sides seemingly intent on eleventh-hour brinkmanship over a deal that could be acceptable to everyone, anything could still happen.
I think the idea of a 21-month extension to include discussion of trading arrangements is probably the best plan with the clock already well into the eleventh hour - but can also see the advantages of a few days of chaos that forces everyone back to the table to sort things out in good faith, in order to avoid a complete nightmare of disruption to trade over the summer.
Someone tell Jeremy the defections aren't about Brexit
Future ones would have been, and took other stuff and Brexit to get most of the rest in the first place.
Looks like he's finally realising it's not worth holding onto your principles if it splits your party. Why would anyone else leave once they get a referendum?
Edit: Although if it is a deal on a Labour unicorn deal that is a bit odd.
How many times do they have to be told that no deal can’t be scrapped? It’s whats already been legislated for, and is the live “Plan A” in the absence of other *positive* action.
It’s not enough to be in favour of the double negative no no deal, they have to be either in favour of a specific deal, or in favour of ignoring the people and revoking A50?
It's really not that complicated is it? The main purpose of no deal at this point seems to be to give people something else to be positively against. The more things you positively oppose and the more voraciously you do it the less time there is to discuss what you are positively for. And that seems to suit our political class just fine.
Indeed. And with both the UK and EU sides seemingly intent on eleventh-hour brinkmanship over a deal that could be acceptable to everyone, anything could still happen.
I think the idea of a 21-month extension to include discussion of trading arrangements is probably the best plan with the clock already well into the eleventh hour - but can also see the advantages of a few days of chaos that forces everyone back to the table to sort things out in good faith, in order to avoid a complete nightmare of disruption to trade over the summer.
I personally think that if we have 21 more months of this nonsense and uncertainty we are likely to cause ourselves an entirely unnecessary recession. They just need to get on with it, now. Right now. Today.
How many times do they have to be told that no deal can’t be scrapped? It’s whats already been legislated for, and is the live “Plan A” in the absence of other *positive* action.
It’s not enough to be in favour of the double negative no no deal, they have to be either in favour of a specific deal, or in favour of ignoring the people and revoking A50?
It's the single, solitary area where May ismore reasonable than her opponents. She at least knows something else has to go in no deal's place besides wishes and dreams.
Someone tell Jeremy the defections aren't about Brexit
Future ones would have been, and took other stuff and Brexit to get most of the rest in the first place.
Looks like he's finally realising it's not worth holding onto your principles if it splits your party. Why would anyone else leave once they get a referendum?
Edit: Although if it is a deal on a Labour unicorn deal that is a bit odd.
Because the labour party has been taken over by trots and they are centrists?
So what are the Watsonites (Watsonians?) going to call themselves?
Labour Lite? Labour Right? Latte Labour? The MPs formerly known as Labour? Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
Weightwatchers
Real Labour.
The Corbyn part can be "Continuity Labour"
Well, it won't be the Judean Peoples Labour Party, will it.
If we fo now get more defections it shows that Labour is done, if a PV doesn't stop the flow nothing will And if tiggers have planned properly I'd expect defections tomorrow
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV 18s BREAKING: Labour will put forward or support an amendment calling for a People’s Vote. This is a big moment folks.
A big win for the TIGs.
Yes and no. If they care about policy more than developing a new party, which is fine, then it has worked out well. But surely they are dead in the water as far as a growing political force unless Corbyn's reported move is not all it appears?
Well done for your Wiki research. Further evidence of weak and disconnected argument though (1 out of 10 marks), that further strengthens my proposition.
I can't decide which hypothesis is creepier: that you went to Cambridge and came away with nothing to show for it but a propensity to sneer at people who didn't, or that you did not go there and are an over enthusiastic fanboy wannabe with your nose pressed against the academic shop window. Unattractive either way. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'll leave embarrassing oneself to tw*ts like you that still think Brexit was a good idea!
?
I thought in 2016 that brexit was probably a slightly bad idea, so I voted against it, and I think in 2019 that it was probably the worst idea anyone has ever had. Some mistake.
I take it you are confirming the fanboy hypothesis. Eeeeuw.
Prat, look at the previous posts. I have no need to be a "fanboy" you numpty! I was asked by the poster why he had deduced he hadn't been there, based on an earlier quip. Similarly I would deduce that you did not vote to remain, but voted leave. All the posts I have seen from you suggest this to be the case. Feeling ashamed of your stupidity? It is good that you are a late convert to common sense. Well done.
Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV 18s BREAKING: Labour will put forward or support an amendment calling for a People’s Vote. This is a big moment folks.
A big win for the TIGs.
And a huge defeat for the ERG. I wonder if they have worked that out yet? Probably not.
They still think things are going swimmingly as long as they defeat their own leader. So long as they don't have to vote for any form of Brexit, and so can maintain purity, what do they care?
We will now see if Corbyn's gamble has worked - even though he has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this point, will his and Labour's fortunes pick up now he has done it?
We will now see if Corbyn's gamble has worked - even though he has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this point, will his and Labour's fortunes pick up now he has done it?
Comments
Do tell.
A degree of patience served me well.
Didn't Chris Huhne, in his first 'newspaper' job after graduating with a PPE find it mistaken for a PE degree?
You mischaracterise my views, but I’m flattered you remember I employ a nanny.
However, the main boasting on this board tends to be by certain Brexiters about their first class travel arrangements, so I think the political point you are making is a bit shit.
https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1100071137965305856
Labour Lite?
Labour Right?
Latte Labour?
The MPs formerly known as Labour?
Or do they go for the Apprentice-Style wank of a name? Thrust. Turbo. Woomf.
Given I got a bit carried away last time with little bets (although the 61 each way on Raikkonen mitigated my losses) I think I'll just stick with my small sum on Gasly.
The Deerstalkers? The Holme Guard?
Hmm.
"Let's Grade all our Female Politicians on whether they're Good-Looking."
Oi! Leave my new Shallow Party alone. Most politicians are a waste of space, so we may as well have pretty ones as not.
Edited for spelling. I'm really getting into this new party, it can't be any worse than the old ones.
"It's time for change" at Baker St.
http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/dwew2/hcwl/gbc/gbc_notes.htm
Harvard University, MIT and Lesley University.
(Tufts and Brandeis are just outside Cambridge, Mass)
So that makes five universities.
The Colleges are of course constituents of Cambridge University. The University itself is distinct.
The real elephant in the room is EU students who disappear the day they graduate, with a ‘loan’ that can’t be collected in any conventional sense.
A messy ‘half way house’ between government and priveate funding just doesn’t work in practice, but the problems are decades down the line.
Tertiary education is one of few areas where the USA have a very good model, with community colleges, state universities and the Ivy League, with different funding models across all three.
She's getting bloody good at this.....
The Open University in the East of England
12 Hills Road
Cambridge
CB2 1PF
http://www.open.ac.uk/about/estates/our-estate/cambridge
Clearly the best uni in the fens!
Brandeis, Tufts, Boston Uni and Boston College are outside the boundary of Cambridge, so I quite properly haven't included them in my arithmetic.
It’s not enough to be in favour of the double negative no no deal, they have to be either in favour of a specific deal, or in favour of ignoring the people and revoking A50?
The AG can bring an appeal to lengthen sentence, and it does sometimes happen but that is different.
Does she think there's time to leave with a deal by 29 March? Or does she just think everyone else is stupid enough to believe that? Doesn't saying unbelievable things all the time tend to damage your credibility?
I can't decide which hypothesis is creepier: that you went to Cambridge and came away with nothing to show for it but a propensity to sneer at people who didn't, or that you did not go there and are an over enthusiastic fanboy wannabe with your nose pressed against the academic shop window. Unattractive either way. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Personally, I'd have a bowl of jelly babies ready.
I thought in 2016 that brexit was probably a slightly bad idea, so I voted against it, and I think in 2019 that it was probably the worst idea anyone has ever had. Some mistake.
I take it you are confirming the fanboy hypothesis. Eeeeuw.
Jelly babies upset the vegetarians/vegans even if it makes the ex Tories feel more at home.
Garibaldi was a bit radical?
Bourbons just a bit too close to the mark.
Ginger snaps reminds those present that none of them have half the wit of the late, great Robin Cook.
Jaffa cakes are probably ok but what if Corbyn comes in for a visit?
The rest ... I'm not convinced.
I think the idea of a 21-month extension to include discussion of trading arrangements is probably the best plan with the clock already well into the eleventh hour - but can also see the advantages of a few days of chaos that forces everyone back to the table to sort things out in good faith, in order to avoid a complete nightmare of disruption to trade over the summer.
Looks like he's finally realising it's not worth holding onto your principles if it splits your party. Why would anyone else leave once they get a referendum?
Edit: Although if it is a deal on a Labour unicorn deal that is a bit odd.
Do you consider offending vegans a positive or negative?
18s
BREAKING: Labour will put forward or support an amendment calling for a People’s Vote. This is a big moment folks.
And if tiggers have planned properly I'd expect defections tomorrow
Yes Definitely. obviously.