O/t but Local Elections related. I was at a U3a Group meeting this afternoon. One of the members remarked that she was standing as a Conservative candidate in the forthcoming local elections. A few minutes later she wished 'we could get rid of this shower in government'!
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
If this is not on the national curriculum that does add some complexity, as you say, however the reasoning espoused by the homophobic protestors, that it should not allowed because it contradicts their faith, is such a major problem because who knows what else they will decide contradicts their faith?
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
What you claim is just wrong.
LOL! Well there's a really convincing argument.
At least I've not called you obtuse, or deliberately obtuse which is presumably intended as a smart-arsed synonym for liar.
You didn't seem to understand a distinction so simple that I found it hard to believe that you didn't understand it.
Your alternative history is irrelevant. Even if we accept the BoE would have blocked that particular takeover, it made little material difference. The global financial crisis would still have occurred. UBS and JPMorgan losses since 2010 show the BoE is not omniscient so your alternative history may also be flawed in that the BoE might not have blocked the takeover in the first place.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
If this is not on the national curriculum that does add some complexity, as you say, however the reasoning espoused by the homophobic protestors, that it should not allowed because it contradicts their faith, is such a major problem because who knows what else they will decide contradicts their faith?
When I was at school the Jehovah Witness kids (both of them) were excused morning Assembly, even though it was non-religious.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Do we apply that in Northern Ireland? Genuine question.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
Indeed. However, this is a natural result of Academisation (businesses) and giving parent's more power in schools (as consumers). The customers don't want what is being sold. Ain't market forces wonderful?
These lessons were devised in harmony with the Prevent strategy, as it was felt that Muslim kids were getting a narrow, illiberal education, which was not preparing them for secular British life, and which was leading to homophobia, misogyny and easier radicalisation.
However, the parents have now said they want their kids to have a narrow, illiberal education, so they can be happily homophobic and misogynist adults, maybe prone to a spot of jihadism if they fancy it.
And we have shuffled our feet and said, Oh well, OK then, have it your way.
We are utterly pathetic.
I am not remotely embarrassed by Brexit. It is democracy, it is messy, it is ours, it is ancient, it is rambunctious and chaotic. I AM embarrassed by our total cultural cowardice in the face of Islam.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Do we apply that in Northern Ireland? Genuine question.
I assume that's up to the devolved government. If it wasn't for devolution I'd say yes.
If this is not on the national curriculum that does add some complexity, as you say, however the reasoning espoused by the homophobic protestors, that it should not allowed because it contradicts their faith, is such a major problem because who knows what else they will decide contradicts their faith?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
Put it on the curriculum then.
Yeah, I don't know exactly what it is, but if it's just teaching liberal values on homosexuality then I agree.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Do we apply that in Northern Ireland? Genuine question.
I assume that's up to the devolved government. If it wasn't for devolution I'd say yes.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
If this is not on the national curriculum that does add some complexity, as you say, however the reasoning espoused by the homophobic protestors, that it should not allowed because it contradicts their faith, is such a major problem because who knows what else they will decide contradicts their faith?
Yes. Although it is important to point out that the stuff in Birmingham is not sex education. It is part of the British values component. It is about tolerance, taught to quite young children via the example of bullying. It is wrong to bully those who are different. Ironically, the parents are bullying schools (who no longer have the support of a local authority), because they heartily approve of bullying (and worse) of certain groups.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
If this is not on the national curriculum that does add some complexity, as you say, however the reasoning espoused by the homophobic protestors, that it should not allowed because it contradicts their faith, is such a major problem because who knows what else they will decide contradicts their faith?
When I was at school the Jehovah Witness kids (both of them) were excused morning Assembly, even though it was non-religious.
They stood outside the hall doors.
There are, obviously, some areas where the issue will be complicated. But allowing homophobes to set the agenda because they believe a matter is in contradiction of their faith is not complicated.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Do we apply that in Northern Ireland? Genuine question.
I assume that's up to the devolved government. If it wasn't for devolution I'd say yes.
So it should be devolved to local level?
I'm confused by your question.
Education is a devolved matter. To the best of my knowledge education is dealt with at the national [4 nations] level and not the local or national [UK] level.
I'm English so saying what I think should happen in England but yes I think it should apply in the rest of the home nations including NI but I don't get to vote in NI elections and I doubt the NI government would be so keen. Do you think we should terminate devolution?
I just can't get my head around the idea of a "President Buttigieg".
Precisely. That will be three Presidents of the last 4 who are the punchline of a joke. I can't believe nobody advised him early on to find some ancestors called something else.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
These lessons were devised in harmony with the Prevent strategy, as it was felt that Muslim kids were getting a narrow, illiberal education, which was not preparing them for secular British life, and which was leading to homophobia, misogyny and easier radicalisation.
However, the parents have now said they want their kids to have a narrow, illiberal education, so they can be happily homophobic and misogynist adults, maybe prone to a spot of jihadism if they fancy it.
And we have shuffled our feet and said, Oh well, OK then, have it your way.
We are utterly pathetic.
I am not remotely embarrassed by Brexit. It is democracy, it is messy, it is ours, it is ancient, it is rambunctious and chaotic. I AM embarrassed by our total cultural cowardice in the face of Islam.
To be fair there is one upside, we can add all the families protesting to a watch-list, which will make MI5's job a little easier.
I'd say that is good news on the grounds it would force our parliamentarians to make a decision (plus I would like to spare our poor elections officers running EU elections, and potentially a referendum and a GE in the same year), but I am far from confident our parliamentarians would do so even with no extension permitted.
If this is not on the national curriculum that does add some complexity, as you say, however the reasoning espoused by the homophobic protestors, that it should not allowed because it contradicts their faith, is such a major problem because who knows what else they will decide contradicts their faith?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
They have decided a certain topic should not be presented in this way because it contradicts their faith. The stuff about it being inappropriate for that age group may or may not be a sincere belief, but ultimately they are saying topic A is incompatible with faith B and must not be allowed as a result. It seems obvious there is a very real danger such people will decide topic C is also incompatible, and topic D for that matter, and so very much more. No faith is even unanimous in its view, so their belief that it is incompatible is not, well, gospel anyway.
These lessons were devised in harmony with the Prevent strategy, as it was felt that Muslim kids were getting a narrow, illiberal education, which was not preparing them for secular British life, and which was leading to homophobia, misogyny and easier radicalisation.
However, the parents have now said they want their kids to have a narrow, illiberal education, so they can be happily homophobic and misogynist adults, maybe prone to a spot of jihadism if they fancy it.
And we have shuffled our feet and said, Oh well, OK then, have it your way.
We are utterly pathetic.
I am not remotely embarrassed by Brexit. It is democracy, it is messy, it is ours, it is ancient, it is rambunctious and chaotic. I AM embarrassed by our total cultural cowardice in the face of Islam.
To be fair there is one upside, we can add all the families protesting to a watch-list, which will make MI5's job a little easier.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
I'm sorry, are you really claiming that my demand we "defend our principles" - i.e. the Enlightenment, and liberal democracy - is actually the kind of "loose talk that encourages terrorists, and should be banned?
They have decided a certain topic should not be presented in this way because it contradicts their faith. The stuff about it being inappropriate for that age group may or may not be a sincere belief, but ultimately they are saying topic A is incompatible with faith B and must not be allowed as a result. It seems obvious there is a very real danger such people will decide topic C is also incompatible, and topic D for that matter, and so very much more. No faith is even unanimous in its view, so their belief that it is incompatible is not, well, gospel anyway.
Yep, I agree. Not just for topic C and D, but A too.
It would be rather ironic if decades after De Gaulle's repeated "Non" votes prevented Britain joining the Common Market, a French President's "Non" pushed us out of it.
These lessons were devised in harmony with the Prevent strategy, as it was felt that Muslim kids were getting a narrow, illiberal education, which was not preparing them for secular British life, and which was leading to homophobia, misogyny and easier radicalisation.
However, the parents have now said they want their kids to have a narrow, illiberal education, so they can be happily homophobic and misogynist adults, maybe prone to a spot of jihadism if they fancy it.
And we have shuffled our feet and said, Oh well, OK then, have it your way.
We are utterly pathetic.
I am not remotely embarrassed by Brexit. It is democracy, it is messy, it is ours, it is ancient, it is rambunctious and chaotic. I AM embarrassed by our total cultural cowardice in the face of Islam.
Dixiedean:
Who is this "us" of which you speak? There has been a concerted push to force schools into the control of private academy chains. In which neither you, I presume, nor I are part of. Therefore, we have no say.
It would be rather ironic if decades after De Gaulle's repeated "Non" votes prevented Britain joining the Common Market, a French President's "Non" pushed us out of it.
Yes.
And the French are quite right to do it. Britain asking for more time "just because" really is inadequate. It's time for Theresa to take her stand. New referendum, or new election?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
I'm sorry, are you really claiming that my demand we "defend our principles" - i.e. the Enlightenment, and liberal democracy - is actually the kind of "loose talk that encourages terrorists, and should be banned?
You have form on here for posting that Muslims should be expelled as invaders.
It's not a panacea, but a lot of people are diverted from terrorism, or arrested and prosecuted for offences other than attacks, thanks to monitoring. I'm sure we would be worse off if the police and security services weren't keeping an eye on people who are susceptible to radicalisation.
1. Let them sort themselves out. They chose to move overseas. Global Britain has other things to do.
That wouldn't exactly be popular but it is consistent and shows a commitment to making Brexit something real. Yelps of pain from expats but most people will shrug their shoulders.
2. Cover their health costs in full indefinitely.
Expensive, but it proves you look after your own. Nobody would complain about it - but they might well complain about the lack of whatever it was you could have spent the money on domestically. And you can at least be sure the expats will keep voting blue.
She's actually chosen to fund it for long enough to run up a bill that can be used as evidence against Brexit. But literally nobody is going to be grateful for it. Indeed I have a feeling that it simply stores up the yelps of pain for later when there is less Brexit news to drown it out.
There doesn't seem to be a problem that she tackles where she can't come up with the worst way of solving it.
I'm no fan of May's but I respectfully disagree. View this as like a safety net.
People have moved overseas expecting to get certain benefits we had signed up to Treaties saying they would get. If that ends overnight due to No Deal then that's not reasonable. Look after them for a year to smooth things out while alternative arrangements can be made in that year. They could return home to the UK but that could take quite a while to arrange, they could make other arrangements overseas etc
If after a year they've chosen to stay overseas then that's their choice. They've had a year's warning by now, they can live with their choice.
All these costs are covered by the UK now and will continue indefinitely under 'No deal' provided individual arrangements are made [ eg Spain and UK have already agreed this I believe]. The 12 month arrangement is to cover the eventuality where no individual agreements are made. Of course these arrangement only refer to existing residents not new ones after we leave.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
These lessons were devised in harmony with the Prevent strategy, as it was felt that Muslim kids were getting a narrow, illiberal education, which was not preparing them for secular British life, and which was leading to homophobia, misogyny and easier radicalisation.
However, the parents have now said they want their kids to have a narrow, illiberal education, so they can be happily homophobic and misogynist adults, maybe prone to a spot of jihadism if they fancy it.
And we have shuffled our feet and said, Oh well, OK then, have it your way.
We are utterly pathetic.
I am not remotely embarrassed by Brexit. It is democracy, it is messy, it is ours, it is ancient, it is rambunctious and chaotic. I AM embarrassed by our total cultural cowardice in the face of Islam.
To be fair there is one upside, we can add all the families protesting to a watch-list, which will make MI5's job a little easier.
Being on one never seems to stop anyone.
I'm sure it does stop some, but obviously the ones it does not are much more prominent in our minds, for obvious reasons.
Macron wants Remain v Deal EUref2, this is all part of the plan Blair has been advising on it to force it and the Withdrawal Agreement and extension only passing with the Kyle amendment tacked on
I can totally believe there has been no decision. This Cabinet is truly farcical, in that even after multiple rounds of resignations they still clearly fight tooth and claw among themselves on everything, mostly with an eye on a future leadership election.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
I'm sorry, are you really claiming that my demand we "defend our principles" - i.e. the Enlightenment, and liberal democracy - is actually the kind of "loose talk that encourages terrorists, and should be banned?
You have form on here for posting that Muslims should be expelled as invaders.
For which I apologised. Yawn.
I'm not apologising for saying we should defend the Enlightenment. This is the nation that abolished slavery, and widow burning. Now we can't defend basic values in our own schools, or stop little British girls being genitally mutilated.
I just can't get my head around the idea of a "President Buttigieg".
Precisely. That will be three Presidents of the last 4 who are the punchline of a joke. I can't believe nobody advised him early on to find some ancestors called something else.
I think you're looking at this backwards. It is rather because his name is the punchline of a joke that he's getting even a look in.
Mayor's would never normally be considered a potential Presidential candidate, let alone a mayor of a minor city with barely 100k population in it. Even Rudy Guiliani struggled and he was an internationally reknowned former Mayor of New York City, plus a bit of a hero for how he and his city had dealt with 9/11.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
What you claim is just wrong.
LOL! Well there's a really convincing argument.
At least I've not called you obtuse, or deliberately obtuse which is presumably intended as a smart-arsed synonym for liar.
You didn't seem to understand a distinction so simple that I found it hard to believe that you didn't understand it.
Your alternative history is irrelevant. Even if we accept the BoE would have blocked that particular takeover, it made little material difference. The global financial crisis would still have occurred. UBS and JPMorgan losses since 2010 show the BoE is not omniscient so your alternative history may also be flawed in that the BoE might not have blocked the takeover in the first place.
I'm sure this isn't the case, but your post reads like you think both UBS and JPM are UK based.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
I suspect you are right on this. Labour will certainly cave on this - they like the Muslim vote too much. I can't wait to hear Owen Jones defend parents rights to reject gay sex lessons.
It would be rather ironic if decades after De Gaulle's repeated "Non" votes prevented Britain joining the Common Market, a French President's "Non" pushed us out of it.
Yes.
And the French are quite right to do it. Britain asking for more time "just because" really is inadequate. It's time for Theresa to take her stand. New referendum, or new election?
Or take a stand for neither. If Parliament wants to prevent No Deal it has a choice. No need to mess around with referendums or elections.
"We've asked for an extension, its been denied, now Parliament do you want no deal or this deal. We need to make a choice."
In practice can the EU agree an extension right up to the last minute or does TMay kill the extension on Thursday by making a proposal that's obviously going to be rejected at the Council of Ministers meeting like "we want to extend, no we don't have a plan, also fuck you"?
We want to extend please.
What's your plan?
We will renegotiate the deal to remove the backstop so it can pass Parliament.
But we've said we won't do that.
Once we've extended we will vote against every proposal and veto everything until the backstop is changed. Then it can pass Parliament.
Wait what did you just say?
You heard me. Now about that extension . . .
"Okay. We do not accept the revocation"
But you have to. The ECJ said so
"Not if it was explicitly and obviously given in bad faith. The judgement assumed that would not be the case; it now rather obviously is so."
---- Given to the ECJ------
---- The ECJ finds in favour of the EU -----
---- We crash out with No Deal -----
---- The EU aren't interested in negotiating with a bad faith neighbour -----
It would be rather ironic if decades after De Gaulle's repeated "Non" votes prevented Britain joining the Common Market, a French President's "Non" pushed us out of it.
I like this bit:
French officials say in private that they are not alone in their stance but that they are more willing than other countries to stick their necks out because Britain will always blame the French for their misfortunes.
TIG MPs scandalised they don’t get Labour places on select committees.
Wait until they discover they won’t get Labour activists or Labour votes.
Perish the thought.
I struggle to summon outrage at this turn of events frankly, even if it is true Corbyn has taken a different view on such matters in the past. Things change, and party hierarchies have no reason to give up their entitlements.
It would be rather ironic if decades after De Gaulle's repeated "Non" votes prevented Britain joining the Common Market, a French President's "Non" pushed us out of it.
Yes.
And the French are quite right to do it. Britain asking for more time "just because" really is inadequate. It's time for Theresa to take her stand. New referendum, or new election?
Or take a stand for neither. If Parliament wants to prevent No Deal it has a choice. No need to mess around with referendums or elections.
"We've asked for an extension, its been denied, now Parliament do you want no deal or this deal. We need to make a choice."
And that is where the choice should be made.
If extending the time is denied, how long is there until 11.00pm on 29/03/2019?
Long enough to leave or long enough to stay. Long enough to make a decision?
It would be rather ironic if decades after De Gaulle's repeated "Non" votes prevented Britain joining the Common Market, a French President's "Non" pushed us out of it.
I like this bit:
French officials say in private that they are not alone in their stance but that they are more willing than other countries to stick their necks out because Britain will always blame the French for their misfortunes.
[Gallic shrug] Mais, je ne comprends pas les Français!
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
I'm sorry, are you really claiming that my demand we "defend our principles" - i.e. the Enlightenment, and liberal democracy - is actually the kind of "loose talk that encourages terrorists, and should be banned?
You have form on here for posting that Muslims should be expelled as invaders.
For which I apologised. Yawn.
I'm not apologising for saying we should defend the Enlightenment. This is the nation that abolished slavery, and widow burning. Now we can't defend basic values in our own schools, or stop little British girls being genitally mutilated.
It is profoundly tragic.
(what in earth does defending the Enlightenment mean?) You have to choose which values you want to uphold. Personally I hate the idea of 'rights', and very much more hate the idea of religion. I'm happy to undertake that I'll do everything in my power to give you what appears to be a right, but if you forget for one moment that it is merely an illusion, and that I've gone out of my way to enforce it then my support for you vanishes.
Scanning through the names I don't think I've ever heard of any of them.
It's a self definition. Which is a bit pompous.
I was momentarily excited to see 50 Brexiteers deciding to, reluctantly, back the deal, before I saw it is not 50 Brexiteer MPs (it did seem implausible). Oh well, meaningless then. Mark Francois can rustle up 51 'super prominent' backers for his stance I am sure.
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
What you claim is just wrong.
There is an untold part of the ABN Amro / RBS story which is rather more significant. There was criminality at the heart of it and the authorities were warned about this long long before September 2008. Regardless of what type of supervisory system existed, nothing can make up for a supervisor or regulator which fails to follow up on or act on warnings given.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
I'm sorry, are you really claiming that my demand we "defend our principles" - i.e. the Enlightenment, and liberal democracy - is actually the kind of "loose talk that encourages terrorists, and should be banned?
You have form on here for posting that Muslims should be expelled as invaders.
For which I apologised. Yawn.
I'm not apologising for saying we should defend the Enlightenment. This is the nation that abolished slavery, and widow burning. Now we can't defend basic values in our own schools, or stop little British girls being genitally mutilated.
It is profoundly tragic.
I am not suggesting apology is required. I think orthodox Islam institutionally misogynistic and homophobic, as indeed are a number of other religions and cultures*. I have no objections to individual Muslims though. We need to be careful with language though.
*This little cultural furore is on the go at our local theatre.
It would be rather ironic if decades after De Gaulle's repeated "Non" votes prevented Britain joining the Common Market, a French President's "Non" pushed us out of it.
Yes.
And the French are quite right to do it. Britain asking for more time "just because" really is inadequate. It's time for Theresa to take her stand. New referendum, or new election?
Or take a stand for neither. If Parliament wants to prevent No Deal it has a choice. No need to mess around with referendums or elections.
"We've asked for an extension, its been denied, now Parliament do you want no deal or this deal. We need to make a choice."
And that is where the choice should be made.
If extending the time is denied, how long is there until 11.00pm on 29/03/2019?
Long enough to leave or long enough to stay. Long enough to make a decision?
Indeed it should be made. Limbo helps nobody.
I rather hope the French do veto a meaningless extension. Parliament has to sort out something.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
I suspect you are right on this. Labour will certainly cave on this - they like the Muslim vote too much. I can't wait to hear Owen Jones defend parents rights to reject gay sex lessons.
How will "Labour cave?" These schools are outside LA control, as the Tories wanted it. The only ones responsible are the private businesses running the schools, or the Education Secretary, whoever the heck that is. And, as I have tried to point out, these are not "gay sex lessons." They are anti-bullying lessons as part of the "British values" lessons. Another Tory idea.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
I'm sorry, are you really claiming that my demand we "defend our principles" - i.e. the Enlightenment, and liberal democracy - is actually the kind of "loose talk that encourages terrorists, and should be banned?
You have form on here for posting that Muslims should be expelled as invaders.
For which I apologised. Yawn.
I'm not apologising for saying we should defend the Enlightenment. This is the nation that abolished slavery, and widow burning. Now we can't defend basic values in our own schools, or stop little British girls being genitally mutilated.
It is profoundly tragic.
(what in earth does defending the Enlightenment mean?) You have to choose which values you want to uphold. Personally I hate the idea of 'rights', and very much more hate the idea of religion. I'm happy to undertake that I'll do everything in my power to give you what appears to be a right, but if you forget for one moment that it is merely an illusion, and that I've gone out of my way to enforce it then my support for you vanishes.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
I suspect you are right on this. Labour will certainly cave on this - they like the Muslim vote too much. I can't wait to hear Owen Jones defend parents rights to reject gay sex lessons.
How will "Labour cave?" These schools are outside LA control, as the Tories wanted it. The only ones responsible are the private businesses running the schools, or the Education Secretary, whoever the heck that is. And, as I have tried to point out, these are not "gay sex lessons." They are anti-bullying lessons as part of the "British values" lessons. Another Tory idea.
Academies still have to meet standards and follow the curriculum don't they? They're still subject to laws and regulations right?
If a decision is made with a gun to Parliament’s heads on the 28 March, frankly I will not consider it legitimate.
Whatever that decision is.
How many guns could be pointing at them?
EU - no more time EU - unacceptable conditions May - deal or crash Bercow - who knows what Labour - amendments or something Others - plenty more, I'm sure.
If a decision is made with a gun to Parliament’s heads on the 28 March, frankly I will not consider it legitimate.
Whatever that decision is.
I tend to disagree. I don't think it would be a very soundly taken decision, but they have done little else for 6 months other than discuss Brexit issues, and while they viciously disagree on various tactics which they may believe have caused, unnecessarily, the pushing of things right to the deadline, the deadline itself is one they all agreed to and knew was coming, and have had many opportunities to take action to resolve the situation before they get to it. Just last week they decided they did not wish to take over the process from the government.
None of them feel responsible for it potentially coming down to the day before exit day. And it would be a panicked and desperate parliament probably engaging in procedural chaos, not a great way of conducting business.
But I could not, therefore, say I agree the decision would not be legitimate, even meant non-literally. A decision made with a gun they placed at their own head and refused to pull away other than mealy mouthed statements essentially, is still a choice they made, and we entrust in them their responsibilities in good times and bad.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
I suspect you are right on this. Labour will certainly cave on this - they like the Muslim vote too much. I can't wait to hear Owen Jones defend parents rights to reject gay sex lessons.
How will "Labour cave?" These schools are outside LA control, as the Tories wanted it. The only ones responsible are the private businesses running the schools, or the Education Secretary, whoever the heck that is. And, as I have tried to point out, these are not "gay sex lessons." They are anti-bullying lessons as part of the "British values" lessons. Another Tory idea.
So the Labour council has no say? What is the DoE doing? or does this all fall within Academy rules?
It would be rather ironic if decades after De Gaulle's repeated "Non" votes prevented Britain joining the Common Market, a French President's "Non" pushed us out of it.
Yes.
And the French are quite right to do it. Britain asking for more time "just because" really is inadequate. It's time for Theresa to take her stand. New referendum, or new election?
Or take a stand for neither. If Parliament wants to prevent No Deal it has a choice. No need to mess around with referendums or elections.
"We've asked for an extension, its been denied, now Parliament do you want no deal or this deal. We need to make a choice."
And that is where the choice should be made.
If extending the time is denied, how long is there until 11.00pm on 29/03/2019?
Long enough to leave or long enough to stay. Long enough to make a decision?
Indeed it should be made. Limbo helps nobody.
I rather hope the French do veto a meaningless extension. Parliament has to sort out something.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
I suspect you are right on this. Labour will certainly cave on this - they like the Muslim vote too much. I can't wait to hear Owen Jones defend parents rights to reject gay sex lessons.
How will "Labour cave?" These schools are outside LA control, as the Tories wanted it. The only ones responsible are the private businesses running the schools, or the Education Secretary, whoever the heck that is. And, as I have tried to point out, these are not "gay sex lessons." They are anti-bullying lessons as part of the "British values" lessons. Another Tory idea.
Academies still have to meet standards and follow the curriculum don't they? They're still subject to laws and regulations right?
Academies do have certain minimum standards. However, being able to opt out of certain aspects of the National Curriculum was supposedly part of their attraction.
Nonsense on stilts. One speech by Peter Lilley but then the Conservatives were on board if not running ahead (and there was a technical reason I've since forgotten why the system had to change -- something to do with a conflict of interest in one of the markets iirc). Nor is it true that there were no bank crises under BoE: BCCI, Johnson Matthey and Barings spring to mind. And there have been larger scandals since 2010 such as UBS.
But none of this matters because it had sod all to do with the global financial crisis.
LOL, you have comprehensively missed the point. Yes, exactly, there were bank crises under the BoE's supervision. In history there have always been bank crises from time to time, in all countries. But in the UK, it was only under Brown's tripartite structure that they weren't prevented from causing systemic danger to the banking system. In particular, you have completely ignored the crucial example, which was the fact that it was no-one's job to consider whether the ABN Amro deal was a danger to the banking system. And that certainly had a massive impact on the degree to which we were clobbered by the global financial crisis.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
What you claim is just wrong.
No it's not.
It’s this sort of high octane, pointed debate that I come to PB for.
If a decision is made with a gun to Parliament’s heads on the 28 March, frankly I will not consider it legitimate.
Whatever that decision is.
How many guns could be pointing at them?
EU - no more time EU - unacceptable conditions May - deal or crash Bercow - who knows what Labour - amendments or something Others - plenty more, I'm sure.
Bercow won't point a gun at them so long as they do what he would prefer.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
As we have been proved so spineless here, the parents will come back for more, and more. The cause will spread to secondary schools, and they will cave, pathetically, as well. Next it will be gender values, family values, maybe even evolution, everything the Muslim community doesn't like will be removed from the curriculum.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
I suspect you are right on this. Labour will certainly cave on this - they like the Muslim vote too much. I can't wait to hear Owen Jones defend parents rights to reject gay sex lessons.
How will "Labour cave?" These schools are outside LA control, as the Tories wanted it. The only ones responsible are the private businesses running the schools, or the Education Secretary, whoever the heck that is. And, as I have tried to point out, these are not "gay sex lessons." They are anti-bullying lessons as part of the "British values" lessons. Another Tory idea.
So the Labour council has no say? What is the DoE doing? or does this all fall within Academy rules?
Very much the latter. Although DoE is ultimately in control as always.
The LBGT thing in Birmingham is interesting. (And also mildly amusing: there's been a real inversion of the tribes since Section 28 days.)
Here's my question: do we think the government should mandate the teaching of certain things - such as homosexuality being an acceptable lifestyle choice, or indeed, that evolution is a scientific fact - and if so, are we going to be consistent in our application?
Because I can assure you all that the orthodox Jewish schools in North London, or the Reg Vardy Academies*, or religious schools in Northern Ireland, haven't been teaching that homosexuality is acceptable.
And are we going to ask that private schools do similarly?
What is the right balance between the parent and the state in deciding what a child should hear?
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
It is tragic. If we are not prepared to defend our principles, we do not deserve to survive as a culture.
There was a young fellow Down Under this week that took that sort of loose talk rather seriously.
I'm sorry, are you really claiming that my demand we "defend our principles" - i.e. the Enlightenment, and liberal democracy - is actually the kind of "loose talk that encourages terrorists, and should be banned?
You have form on here for posting that Muslims should be expelled as invaders.
For which I apologised. Yawn.
I'm not apologising for saying we should defend the Enlightenment. This is the nation that abolished slavery, and widow burning. Now we can't defend basic values in our own schools, or stop little British girls being genitally mutilated.
It is profoundly tragic.
(what in earth does defending the Enlightenment mean?) You have to choose which values you want to uphold. Personally I hate the idea of 'rights', and very much more hate the idea of religion. I'm happy to undertake that I'll do everything in my power to give you what appears to be a right, but if you forget for one moment that it is merely an illusion, and that I've gone out of my way to enforce it then my support for you vanishes.
You what?
I think I was reasonably clear - the 'you' in all of this was an abstract one.
The crucial market change was in the degree of interlinking (and increased leverage) thanks to the exponential growth of derivatives markets. LTCM's collapse should perhaps, with hindsight, have rung more bells. Tripartite supervision was and is irrelevant to the global financial crisis as was RBS/ABNAmro.
You are being (I presume deliberately) obtuse. Yes of course the UK's lack of proper banking supervision was not the cause of the world financial crisis (although it was probably a factor). That is not the point - the point is that the impact on the UK was particularly bad because of Brown's destruction of the supervisory system. Can you really not understand the distinction?
What you claim is just wrong.
LOL! Well there's a really convincing argument.
At least I've not called you obtuse, or deliberately obtuse which is presumably intended as a smart-arsed synonym for liar.
You didn't seem to understand a distinction so simple that I found it hard to believe that you didn't understand it.
Your alternative history is irrelevant. Even if we accept the BoE would have blocked that particular takeover, it made little material difference. The global financial crisis would still have occurred. UBS and JPMorgan losses since 2010 show the BoE is not omniscient so your alternative history may also be flawed in that the BoE might not have blocked the takeover in the first place.
I'm sure this isn't the case, but your post reads like you think both UBS and JPM are UK based.
Both UBS and JPMorgan mislaid billions in the City under BoE regulation. The problem is that if the bank's internal systems do not pick up rogue trading in the first place then it cannot be reported to the BoE, or they do but the bank does not report it. Either way, if the supervisor is in the dark it does not matter whether it is based in Threadneedle Street or Canary Wharf.
Is there any instance at all of the French ever being helpful to the UK?
Yes. The Frogs stopped selling the Argies exocets during the Falklands, when the Argentines were about to sink our entire navy.
Fake news.
But Mitterrand's policy of supporting Britain provoked dissent among some senior officials in the French foreign ministry.
In a stinging memo dated 7 April 1982, France's then ambassador to London, Emmanuel de Margerie, described British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as "Victorian, imperialist and obstinate". He went on to add that she had a "tendency to get carried away by combative instincts".
In another document entitled The Falklands: Lessons from a Fiasco, senior French official Bernard Dorin accused Britain of "superpower arrogance" and claimed the country had shown "profound contempt for Latinos".
Behind the scenes, actions were speaking louder than words. In what would appear to be a clear breach of President Mitterrand's embargo, a French technical team - mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government - stayed in Argentina throughout the war.
In an interview carried out in 1982 by Sunday Times journalist Isabel Hilton, the team's leader, Herve Colin, admitted carrying out one particular test that proved invaluable to Argentinian forces.
Has anybody seen the Kay Burley fiasco this afternoon? What on earth has happened to Sky News? In the midst of a massive constitutional crisis they're off deep sea diving.
Some parents at Parkfield, and the other four schools, claim the classes are inappropriate for young children and the schools' LGBT message contradicts Islam.
Rather gives the game away that statement. Start with a suggestion which is at least arguable, even if many do not agree such things are inappropriate for young children, but then outright state the real issue, the implication of which is nothing that contradicts their religion should be taught in school.
I see no problems there, and I'm sure we all agree no schools, of predominantly any faith, would ever abuse their position to disallow other things because it contradicts their faith. As we all know, only faith approved topics are permissable in schools.
Precisely. We should say that this is a secular, tolerant country so religion can't trump teaching tolerance to others. We should insist the schools' LGBT message must be taught or the school will be closed down.
Wouldn't that be horribly counter-productive? As I understand it, the school opted to teach this material, it's not on the national curriculum. If schools faced being shut down for withdrawing material that they introduced, none of them would ever dare introduce anything that might be in the slightest bit controversial.
As far as I'm concerned, if we care about this material being taught, add it to the national curriculum. That would not only mean that this school would teach it, it would also mean children at other schools wouldn't miss out
If this is not on the national curriculum that does add some complexity, as you say, however the reasoning espoused by the homophobic protestors, that it should not allowed because it contradicts their faith, is such a major problem because who knows what else they will decide contradicts their faith?
When I was at school the Jehovah Witness kids (both of them) were excused morning Assembly, even though it was non-religious.
They stood outside the hall doors.
My bog standard state comp managed to find a way to inject gallons of religious fairy stories into its ‘non-religious’ assemblies. I’d have happily bunked off if I could. The entire exercise was a complete waste of time.
I confidently said that we wouldn't Brexit by No Deal but I must admit I wasn't factoring in the Arch Ditherer herself. She was like this in the Home Office. This time's a tad more serious.
I confidently said that we wouldn't Brexit by No Deal but I must admit I wasn't factoring in the Arch Ditherer herself. She was like this in the Home Office. This time's a tad more serious.
*TIG defection watch* 13 Labour MPs voted to keep the Tiggers on the select committees earlier, which I would guess means they're the most likely to defect themselves:
Adrian Bailey Kevin Barron Chris Bryant Ann Clwyd Louise Ellman Paul Farrelly Jim Fitzpatrick Margaret Hodge David Lammy Steve McCabe Siobhain McDonagh Ian Murray Wes Streeting
168 Labour MPs voted to boot them off, 64 abstained (including both Corbyn and Watson).
Comments
They stood outside the hall doors.
However, the parents have now said they want their kids to have a narrow, illiberal education, so they can be happily homophobic and misogynist adults, maybe prone to a spot of jihadism if they fancy it.
And we have shuffled our feet and said, Oh well, OK then, have it your way.
We are utterly pathetic.
I am not remotely embarrassed by Brexit. It is democracy, it is messy, it is ours, it is ancient, it is rambunctious and chaotic. I AM embarrassed by our total cultural cowardice in the face of Islam.
Ironically, the parents are bullying schools (who no longer have the support of a local authority), because they heartily approve of bullying (and worse) of certain groups.
Education is a devolved matter. To the best of my knowledge education is dealt with at the national [4 nations] level and not the local or national [UK] level.
I'm English so saying what I think should happen in England but yes I think it should apply in the rest of the home nations including NI but I don't get to vote in NI elections and I doubt the NI government would be so keen. Do you think we should terminate devolution?
These lessons were devised in harmony with the Prevent strategy, as it was felt that Muslim kids were getting a narrow, illiberal education, which was not preparing them for secular British life, and which was leading to homophobia, misogyny and easier radicalisation.
However, the parents have now said they want their kids to have a narrow, illiberal education, so they can be happily homophobic and misogynist adults, maybe prone to a spot of jihadism if they fancy it.
And we have shuffled our feet and said, Oh well, OK then, have it your way.
We are utterly pathetic.
I am not remotely embarrassed by Brexit. It is democracy, it is messy, it is ours, it is ancient, it is rambunctious and chaotic. I AM embarrassed by our total cultural cowardice in the face of Islam.
Dixiedean:
Who is this "us" of which you speak? There has been a concerted push to force schools into the control of private academy chains.
In which neither you, I presume, nor I are part of.
Therefore, we have no say.
And the French are quite right to do it. Britain asking for more time "just because" really is inadequate. It's time for Theresa to take her stand. New referendum, or new election?
He said he is going to vote LD as they will see BREXIT happens.
When I told him they were the most Remoaner party said he was voting UKIP
Left it at that!!!
I'm not apologising for saying we should defend the Enlightenment. This is the nation that abolished slavery, and widow burning. Now we can't defend basic values in our own schools, or stop little British girls being genitally mutilated.
It is profoundly tragic.
Mayor's would never normally be considered a potential Presidential candidate, let alone a mayor of a minor city with barely 100k population in it. Even Rudy Guiliani struggled and he was an internationally reknowned former Mayor of New York City, plus a bit of a hero for how he and his city had dealt with 9/11.
Wait until they discover they won’t get Labour activists or Labour votes.
"We've asked for an extension, its been denied, now Parliament do you want no deal or this deal. We need to make a choice."
But you have to. The ECJ said so
"Not if it was explicitly and obviously given in bad faith. The judgement assumed that would not be the case; it now rather obviously is so."
---- Given to the ECJ------
---- The ECJ finds in favour of the EU -----
---- We crash out with No Deal -----
---- The EU aren't interested in negotiating with a bad faith neighbour -----
---- Turns out no-one else is, either -----
Oops.
French officials say in private that they are not alone in their stance but that they are more willing than other countries to stick their necks out because Britain will always blame the French for their misfortunes.
I struggle to summon outrage at this turn of events frankly, even if it is true Corbyn has taken a different view on such matters in the past. Things change, and party hierarchies have no reason to give up their entitlements.
Prominent?
Scanning through the names I don't think I've ever heard of any of them.
If extending the time is denied, how long is there until 11.00pm on 29/03/2019?
Long enough to leave or long enough to stay. Long enough to make a decision?
You have to choose which values you want to uphold. Personally I hate the idea of 'rights', and very much more hate the idea of religion. I'm happy to undertake that I'll do everything in my power to give you what appears to be a right, but if you forget for one moment that it is merely an illusion, and that I've gone out of my way to enforce it then my support for you vanishes.
I was momentarily excited to see 50 Brexiteers deciding to, reluctantly, back the deal, before I saw it is not 50 Brexiteer MPs (it did seem implausible). Oh well, meaningless then. Mark Francois can rustle up 51 'super prominent' backers for his stance I am sure.
Also, why is Leavers in quotations?
Whatever that decision is.
*This little cultural furore is on the go at our local theatre.
https://twitter.com/andnowno2/status/1107777700327026690?s=19
I rather hope the French do veto a meaningless extension. Parliament has to sort out something.
Macron is under no obligation to grant an extension just because having invoked Article 50, Parliament is now not prepared to make any choices.
And, as I have tried to point out, these are not "gay sex lessons." They are anti-bullying lessons as part of the "British values" lessons. Another Tory idea.
EU - no more time
EU - unacceptable conditions
May - deal or crash
Bercow - who knows what
Labour - amendments or something
Others - plenty more, I'm sure.
None of them feel responsible for it potentially coming down to the day before exit day. And it would be a panicked and desperate parliament probably engaging in procedural chaos, not a great way of conducting business.
But I could not, therefore, say I agree the decision would not be legitimate, even meant non-literally. A decision made with a gun they placed at their own head and refused to pull away other than mealy mouthed statements essentially, is still a choice they made, and we entrust in them their responsibilities in good times and bad.
They just need a bit of improvement to match their spiritual heir Liz Kendall's 4.5%.
Here's my question: do we think the government should mandate the teaching of certain things - such as homosexuality being an acceptable lifestyle choice, or indeed, that evolution is a scientific fact - and if so, are we going to be consistent in our application?
Because I can assure you all that the orthodox Jewish schools in North London, or the Reg Vardy Academies*, or religious schools in Northern Ireland, haven't been teaching that homosexuality is acceptable.
And are we going to ask that private schools do similarly?
What is the right balance between the parent and the state in deciding what a child should hear?
* They hate evolution and the gays
I assume he meant turdish, but can’t spell.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/dunkirk-brexit/536106/
But Mitterrand's policy of supporting Britain provoked dissent among some senior officials in the French foreign ministry.
In a stinging memo dated 7 April 1982, France's then ambassador to London, Emmanuel de Margerie, described British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as "Victorian, imperialist and obstinate". He went on to add that she had a "tendency to get carried away by combative instincts".
In another document entitled The Falklands: Lessons from a Fiasco, senior French official Bernard Dorin accused Britain of "superpower arrogance" and claimed the country had shown "profound contempt for Latinos".
Behind the scenes, actions were speaking louder than words. In what would appear to be a clear breach of President Mitterrand's embargo, a French technical team - mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government - stayed in Argentina throughout the war.
In an interview carried out in 1982 by Sunday Times journalist Isabel Hilton, the team's leader, Herve Colin, admitted carrying out one particular test that proved invaluable to Argentinian forces.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975
https://twitter.com/garius/status/1107738049314779144
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne
[* Type 42]
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1108101718263451651
I hereby predict if it is a two year delay then Brexit will never actually happen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47627744
13 Labour MPs voted to keep the Tiggers on the select committees earlier, which I would guess means they're the most likely to defect themselves:
Adrian Bailey
Kevin Barron
Chris Bryant
Ann Clwyd
Louise Ellman
Paul Farrelly
Jim Fitzpatrick
Margaret Hodge
David Lammy
Steve McCabe
Siobhain McDonagh
Ian Murray
Wes Streeting
168 Labour MPs voted to boot them off, 64 abstained (including both Corbyn and Watson).
I wasn't trying to be helpful, but neither am I trying to be the thought-police.