For the first time in a while, I'm with @Philip_Thompson on this one. @Topping have you been institutionalised somewhere where 'sterlisation' takes precedent overtrying to actually you know, save someone's life ?
Again same point to you. A self-declared medic attends some mildly wounded person and by mistake kills them. That a great outcome? What do we think people would say of 5-0 then?
Because of some of the things I am involved with, I have had basic medical training involving CPR, wound management and hypothermia management.
During the courses it is emphasized that non-treatment can kill, sometimes treatment can kill. People even die with professional medics involved. There are no guarantees.
If I was helping/treating someone and I was kicked away and they died, I would be looking to charge the "kicker" with manslaughter.
Doesn't alter my point. The police arrive, see someone on the ground, and try to clear the area.
Yes they prioritised clearing the area over saving the man's life. Why is clearing the area more important than allowing prompt medical care to someone who needs it by a licensed professional?
The Tories in Scotland have been (mal)formed by decades of imposing their policies here rather than getting consent for them. They've forgotten the first rule of politics which is that your promises have to have a semblance of plausibility.
Shouldn't be surprised if the number of new lanes that they're promising on the M8 is into double figures by next May.
What was this amendment he is alleged to have vote against?
There's no allege about it. Ross voted against clause 11, an amendment to the trade bill 'which would require all future food and drink imports, plant health and environmental standards to meet or exceed the UK’s exacting food safety standards'.
I have three Trump-supporting friends who are not professional politicians or lobbyists. None are in the military, so it's not strictly on topic, but anyway. All are white males. Here are their reasons:
#1: mid-thirties, high-school educated: "Trump is great. He's funny and he f(*&s hot b%^&*$s".
#2: mid-forties, also high-school educated: works in metal-bashing manufacturing supports him because of America First trade policy.
#3: seventies, retired lawyer: likes his tax cuts and hates BLM protests. Also thinks Biden is pretty unimpressive. Doesn't like Trump's Twitter posts though.
For the first time in a while, I'm with @Philip_Thompson on this one. @Topping have you been institutionalised somewhere where 'sterlisation' takes precedent overtrying to actually you know, save someone's life ?
Again same point to you. A self-declared medic attends some mildly wounded person and by mistake kills them. That a great outcome? What do we think people would say of 5-0 then?
Because of some of the things I am involved with, I have had basic medical training involving CPR, wound management and hypothermia management.
During the courses it is emphasized that non-treatment can kill, sometimes treatment can kill. People even die with professional medics involved. There are no guarantees.
If I was helping/treating someone and I was kicked away and they died, I would be looking to charge the "kicker" with manslaughter.
Doesn't alter my point. The police arrive, see someone on the ground, and try to clear the area.
Yes they prioritised clearing the area over saving the man's life. Why is clearing the area more important than allowing prompt medical care to someone who needs it by a licensed professional?
You do not know he needed prompt medical attention. He died, yes. Perhaps because he didn't receive prompt medical attention or perhaps he would have died anyway. You don't know.
But upon arrival all the police saw was a casualty and a crowd around that casualty with some bags. Perhaps they were trying to take the casualty's weapons and put them in their bags to hide evidence. Or perhaps they were on the other side of the "debate" to the casualty and might have wanted to "make sure" that the guy was dead.
The police knew none of that so arrived, cleared the area and then made further decisions.
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
For the first time in a while, I'm with @Philip_Thompson on this one. @Topping have you been institutionalised somewhere where 'sterlisation' takes precedent overtrying to actually you know, save someone's life ?
Again same point to you. A self-declared medic attends some mildly wounded person and by mistake kills them. That a great outcome? What do we think people would say of 5-0 then?
Because of some of the things I am involved with, I have had basic medical training involving CPR, wound management and hypothermia management.
During the courses it is emphasized that non-treatment can kill, sometimes treatment can kill. People even die with professional medics involved. There are no guarantees.
If I was helping/treating someone and I was kicked away and they died, I would be looking to charge the "kicker" with manslaughter.
Doesn't alter my point. The police arrive, see someone on the ground, and try to clear the area.
And your point also supports mine. There are so many different variables around treating someone including an assessment of their injuries and the decision about whether to treat them at all, that this particular incident shows nothing including some evil intent by the police. Which there may have been but which is not shown in the clip.
The correct response for the police is to ask the medic / first aider what they are doing. Someone on the ground treating someone is not rioting nor throwing things at cops.
Anyway, I will go back to the real world and leave you lot to deal with your politically-aligned fantasies.
Graphic video warning - the cops here attack and push away a medic from treating someone who has been shot. They have no other medic to treat him and he dies.
These monsters are not normal. There is no way a British cop would push away a medic from treating someone who needed it and just stand there and watch someone die refusing medical treatment.
They don't know what has happened....
And made no attempt at all to find out.
They just arrived on the scene, tried to sterilise the area getting rid of people they didn't know, and then who knows what happened.
Do you?
How does "sterilising" the area of medics help with no other medics are available?
Fucking hell Philip you're smarter than this. Aren't you?
Scenario A: cops let self-declared medic attend to seemingly badly injured person who it turns out was only winded. Self-declared medic injects him with deadly compound by mistake and kills said wounded person stone dead.
Then what?
Throw around all the hypothetical scenarios you want, the man was f***ing shot and the cops knew that and they had no medic on scene. Prompt medical attention when someone has been shot can save someone's life.
If they had their own medic on scene who could treat him instead that would be different. They didn't and now he's dead.
Yes, I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the police would pull a medic away from someone needing treatment here in Germany (unless the medic's life was in danger if they stayed there). If they had some reason to doubt the "self-declared medic" then I suppose they could ask to see ID. My wife has a card in her wallet identifying her as a doctor, though nobody has ever asked to see it on the occasions when she has come across people needing treatment.
Absolutely. On a train, bloke keels over from a suspected heart attack, "anyone on board a doctor?", one emerges, treats the injured, saves them, perhaps some CPR, all is well, the doctor's a hero and high-fiving the police officer.
From the clip is it reasonable to say that the "medic" emerged from the same crowd of protesters as the person on the ground? Do we know how, when, or by whom the person was shot? Do we think the police officers knew he was shot? Do we know anything apart from a curated clip which people are using to fit their narrative? No. We don't.
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here. That someone was shot, and then someone else (or maybe the same person?), who was already prepared with black bag and fatal injection kit ran up to murder the injured person while pretending to be a medic? While surrounded by the police? Or that such a scenario would be a reasonable assumption by the police?
You have no idea what happened before or after that clip.
Neither do you. I am just asking you what you are suggesting that would justify the police pulling someone away from treating an injured person, because it sounds very much like you are suggesting the (imho totally implausible) scenario above. If you are suggesting something else please share.
I am saying the police arrived upon someone on the ground for reasons they might have had no idea about. Standing over that person was someone else, who self-identified as a medic. So they cleared the area. Perhaps to take stock, perhaps to call a police medic, perhaps...
What they probably couldn't do is to allow the situation to continue with someone unknown apparently wounded and someone else unknown doing something to that person with no oversight whatsoever.
Can you not see any possibilities between "no oversight whatsoever", and pulling away the person treating the injured person before any other medical help arrived?
To me that clip, coupled with the information that a medic was there and the man died, looks pretty bad, on the face of it the police did the wrong thing. Now, you might say it's not conclusive, maybe they were acting reasonably with the best intentions, maybe it wasn't really a medic, maybe the person didn't die, maybe the whole clip is fake, whatever, so don't jump to conclusions, fair enough.
But to insist the police did nothing wrong, that someone could be pretending to be a medic in order to administer a lethal injection while surrounded by police, is just silly.
For the first time in a while, I'm with @Philip_Thompson on this one. @Topping have you been institutionalised somewhere where 'sterlisation' takes precedent overtrying to actually you know, save someone's life ?
Again same point to you. A self-declared medic attends some mildly wounded person and by mistake kills them. That a great outcome? What do we think people would say of 5-0 then?
Because of some of the things I am involved with, I have had basic medical training involving CPR, wound management and hypothermia management.
During the courses it is emphasized that non-treatment can kill, sometimes treatment can kill. People even die with professional medics involved. There are no guarantees.
If I was helping/treating someone and I was kicked away and they died, I would be looking to charge the "kicker" with manslaughter.
Doesn't alter my point. The police arrive, see someone on the ground, and try to clear the area.
And your point also supports mine. There are so many different variables around treating someone including an assessment of their injuries and the decision about whether to treat them at all, that this particular incident shows nothing including some evil intent by the police. Which there may have been but which is not shown in the clip.
The correct response for the police is to ask the medic / first aider what they are doing. Someone on the ground treating someone is not rioting nor throwing things at cops.
Anyway, I will go back to the real world and leave you lot to deal with your politically-aligned fantasies.
The correct police response is to take control of the situation. And then do the asking if the circumstances allow or are conducive.
Enjoy the real world. I think the guy who died found it all quite real.
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
And where do you start.
Do you ban home schooling? Do you ban two children being home schooled together by one of their parents? Three children...
Would after school football classes be okay, but not maths classes?
Banning parental choice in education is the preserve of Soviet Russia or China.
Deputy Chairman of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party
So I think we can forget about allegations of the BBC being run by lefties now thanks
He may not be a lefty but institutionally it still is. But either way its moot, even if the BBC were institutionally and systematically right-wing with its output I would want the licence fee axed. People should choose whether to subscribe to the BBC from their own free will.
Cancel culture but it's ok because it favours the right
I would have no problem with the BBC having the Mash Report, if it had a similar comedy show from a right wing perspective. It is the lack of balance that is the problem.
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
Private education starts with reading to your kids when they are infants.
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
Private education starts with reading to your kids when they are infants.
Graphic video warning - the cops here attack and push away a medic from treating someone who has been shot. They have no other medic to treat him and he dies.
These monsters are not normal. There is no way a British cop would push away a medic from treating someone who needed it and just stand there and watch someone die refusing medical treatment.
They don't know what has happened....
And made no attempt at all to find out.
They just arrived on the scene, tried to sterilise the area getting rid of people they didn't know, and then who knows what happened.
Do you?
How does "sterilising" the area of medics help with no other medics are available?
Fucking hell Philip you're smarter than this. Aren't you?
Scenario A: cops let self-declared medic attend to seemingly badly injured person who it turns out was only winded. Self-declared medic injects him with deadly compound by mistake and kills said wounded person stone dead.
Then what?
Throw around all the hypothetical scenarios you want, the man was f***ing shot and the cops knew that and they had no medic on scene. Prompt medical attention when someone has been shot can save someone's life.
If they had their own medic on scene who could treat him instead that would be different. They didn't and now he's dead.
Yes, I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the police would pull a medic away from someone needing treatment here in Germany (unless the medic's life was in danger if they stayed there). If they had some reason to doubt the "self-declared medic" then I suppose they could ask to see ID. My wife has a card in her wallet identifying her as a doctor, though nobody has ever asked to see it on the occasions when she has come across people needing treatment.
Absolutely. On a train, bloke keels over from a suspected heart attack, "anyone on board a doctor?", one emerges, treats the injured, saves them, perhaps some CPR, all is well, the doctor's a hero and high-fiving the police officer.
From the clip is it reasonable to say that the "medic" emerged from the same crowd of protesters as the person on the ground? Do we know how, when, or by whom the person was shot? Do we think the police officers knew he was shot? Do we know anything apart from a curated clip which people are using to fit their narrative? No. We don't.
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here. That someone was shot, and then someone else (or maybe the same person?), who was already prepared with black bag and fatal injection kit ran up to murder the injured person while pretending to be a medic? While surrounded by the police? Or that such a scenario would be a reasonable assumption by the police?
You have no idea what happened before or after that clip.
Neither do you. I am just asking you what you are suggesting that would justify the police pulling someone away from treating an injured person, because it sounds very much like you are suggesting the (imho totally implausible) scenario above. If you are suggesting something else please share.
I am saying the police arrived upon someone on the ground for reasons they might have had no idea about. Standing over that person was someone else, who self-identified as a medic. So they cleared the area. Perhaps to take stock, perhaps to call a police medic, perhaps...
What they probably couldn't do is to allow the situation to continue with someone unknown apparently wounded and someone else unknown doing something to that person with no oversight whatsoever.
Can you not see any possibilities between "no oversight whatsoever", and pulling away the person treating the injured person before any other medical help arrived?
To me that clip, coupled with the information that a medic was there and the man died, looks pretty bad, on the face of it the police did the wrong thing. Now, you might say it's not conclusive, maybe they were acting reasonably with the best intentions, maybe it wasn't really a medic, maybe the person didn't die, maybe the whole clip is fake, whatever, so don't jump to conclusions, fair enough.
But to insist the police did nothing wrong, that someone could be pretending to be a medic in order to administer a lethal injection while surrounded by police, is just silly.
As I said the twin luxuries of hindsight and the time to impose a narrative where there is not one as borne out by the raw facts are very useful for people on internet chat rooms.
Take stock and allow the medic in to continue treatment after checking ID would be reasonable. Take stock and deny treatment altogether is not.
1. Protestors oppose Trump 2. Patriots back trump 3. Protestors must be unpatriotic 4. Probably means they're being organised by ChinaCHINAchina 5. Probably makes them enemy combatants or something
The increasingly absurd veering towards fascism culture wars in America is a warning to anyone looking at wanting to do the same thing here...
Graphic video warning - the cops here attack and push away a medic from treating someone who has been shot. They have no other medic to treat him and he dies.
These monsters are not normal. There is no way a British cop would push away a medic from treating someone who needed it and just stand there and watch someone die refusing medical treatment.
They don't know what has happened....
And made no attempt at all to find out.
They just arrived on the scene, tried to sterilise the area getting rid of people they didn't know, and then who knows what happened.
Do you?
How does "sterilising" the area of medics help with no other medics are available?
Fucking hell Philip you're smarter than this. Aren't you?
Scenario A: cops let self-declared medic attend to seemingly badly injured person who it turns out was only winded. Self-declared medic injects him with deadly compound by mistake and kills said wounded person stone dead.
Then what?
Throw around all the hypothetical scenarios you want, the man was f***ing shot and the cops knew that and they had no medic on scene. Prompt medical attention when someone has been shot can save someone's life.
If they had their own medic on scene who could treat him instead that would be different. They didn't and now he's dead.
Yes, I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the police would pull a medic away from someone needing treatment here in Germany (unless the medic's life was in danger if they stayed there). If they had some reason to doubt the "self-declared medic" then I suppose they could ask to see ID. My wife has a card in her wallet identifying her as a doctor, though nobody has ever asked to see it on the occasions when she has come across people needing treatment.
Absolutely. On a train, bloke keels over from a suspected heart attack, "anyone on board a doctor?", one emerges, treats the injured, saves them, perhaps some CPR, all is well, the doctor's a hero and high-fiving the police officer.
From the clip is it reasonable to say that the "medic" emerged from the same crowd of protesters as the person on the ground? Do we know how, when, or by whom the person was shot? Do we think the police officers knew he was shot? Do we know anything apart from a curated clip which people are using to fit their narrative? No. We don't.
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here. That someone was shot, and then someone else (or maybe the same person?), who was already prepared with black bag and fatal injection kit ran up to murder the injured person while pretending to be a medic? While surrounded by the police? Or that such a scenario would be a reasonable assumption by the police?
You have no idea what happened before or after that clip.
Neither do you. I am just asking you what you are suggesting that would justify the police pulling someone away from treating an injured person, because it sounds very much like you are suggesting the (imho totally implausible) scenario above. If you are suggesting something else please share.
I am saying the police arrived upon someone on the ground for reasons they might have had no idea about. Standing over that person was someone else, who self-identified as a medic. So they cleared the area. Perhaps to take stock, perhaps to call a police medic, perhaps...
What they probably couldn't do is to allow the situation to continue with someone unknown apparently wounded and someone else unknown doing something to that person with no oversight whatsoever.
Can you not see any possibilities between "no oversight whatsoever", and pulling away the person treating the injured person before any other medical help arrived?
To me that clip, coupled with the information that a medic was there and the man died, looks pretty bad, on the face of it the police did the wrong thing. Now, you might say it's not conclusive, maybe they were acting reasonably with the best intentions, maybe it wasn't really a medic, maybe the person didn't die, maybe the whole clip is fake, whatever, so don't jump to conclusions, fair enough.
But to insist the police did nothing wrong, that someone could be pretending to be a medic in order to administer a lethal injection while surrounded by police, is just silly.
As I said the twin luxuries of hindsight and the time to impose a narrative where there is not one as borne out by the raw facts are very useful for people on internet chat rooms.
The raw facts are that there was a medic on scene trying to provide medical attention, the medic was removed and no alternative medic put in her place and then the man died.
But that's the last I have to say on the matter, we're going around in circles.
If the Tories aren't going to actually pull their finger out and transition the BBC away from the license fee with an 80 seat majority then they never will. The fact they are farting about around the edges demonstrates they see whining about it is a way to get votes and nothing more. At the end of the day those at the top of the party generally agree with the Beebs worldview.
Cancel culture but it's ok because it favours the right
I would have no problem with the BBC having the Mash Report, if it had a similar comedy show from a right wing perspective. It is the lack of balance that is the problem.
I am sure you will still complain when the new Tory Director adds right-wing content
Cancel culture but it's ok because it favours the right
I would have no problem with the BBC having the Mash Report, if it had a similar comedy show from a right wing perspective. It is the lack of balance that is the problem.
I am sure you will still complain when the new Tory Director adds right-wing content
Surely the problem is balance. Would you have a racist to balance someone supporting Black Lives Matter?
Cancel culture but it's ok because it favours the right
I would have no problem with the BBC having the Mash Report, if it had a similar comedy show from a right wing perspective. It is the lack of balance that is the problem.
I am sure you will still complain when the new Tory Director adds right-wing content
Surely the problem is balance. Would you have a racist to balance someone supporting Black Lives Matter?
Would you have a climate change denier to balance climate change discussion?
If the Tories aren't going to actually pull their finger out and transition the BBC away from the license fee with an 80 seat majority then they never will. The fact they are farting about around the edges demonstrates they see whining about it is a way to get votes and nothing more. At the end of the day those at the top of the party generally agree with the Beebs worldview.
The BBCs licence fee is guaranted until 2026 from memory. I don't believe its possible to transition it away this Parliament.
They could perhaps put in new arrangements to take place from 2026, but then since the law says there must be an election by 2024 then the Opposition could just pledge to reverse those changes before they take effect.
Hopefully if this can't be dealt with this Parliament then another majority can be won and it be dealt with next time.
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
Private education starts with reading to your kids when they are infants.
^ This. ^
100% agreed.
Also the cheapest and single most effective bit of private education. (My kids went to state schools.)
Cancel culture but it's ok because it favours the right
I would have no problem with the BBC having the Mash Report, if it had a similar comedy show from a right wing perspective. It is the lack of balance that is the problem.
I am sure you will still complain when the new Tory Director adds right-wing content
Surely the problem is balance. Would you have a racist to balance someone supporting Black Lives Matter?
There's loads of people you can find who i.) Clearly aren't racist and ii.) Don't support BLM.
Cancel culture but it's ok because it favours the right
I would have no problem with the BBC having the Mash Report, if it had a similar comedy show from a right wing perspective. It is the lack of balance that is the problem.
I am sure you will still complain when the new Tory Director adds right-wing content
Surely the problem is balance. Would you have a racist to balance someone supporting Black Lives Matter?
Every expert needs to be balanced by an ignoramus with lower than average IQ. We get the weather from a Met Office scientist. Why not balance that with a bloke called Ted and what he "reckons"?
Going back into the "office" (its really a library) this morning for the first time in a few weeks. My wife is cheering me out the door and seriously looking forward to some time in the house on her own, once son is off to school and daughter to work.
She really needs her alone time and has found this lockdown very hard. I suspect that there is many like her.
For most of humanity men have gone 'out of home to work and women have stayed 'in the home' for childcare, housecare. At least that seems to be the pattern, looking at things world-wide.
Not really in the UK. The sole breadwinner family is a relatively recent invention and highly class based.
In peasantry time the whole family unit worked. Even as you transition to 17th 18th centruty
And indeed the textile industry during the Industrial Revolution was predominantly female. Not to mention domestic service in the 19th century.
Methinks Mr Cole lives 'upstairs'.
My Thai relatives, famers, have a similar pattern to that which I described. Of course I recognise that women have and do 'worked', in the sense of for wages. In the early 19C that was a significant part of the economy of the small town where I live. They often tended to do it as outworkers, though, with the men farm workers or similar.
Graphic video warning - the cops here attack and push away a medic from treating someone who has been shot. They have no other medic to treat him and he dies.
These monsters are not normal. There is no way a British cop would push away a medic from treating someone who needed it and just stand there and watch someone die refusing medical treatment.
They don't know what has happened....
And made no attempt at all to find out.
They just arrived on the scene, tried to sterilise the area getting rid of people they didn't know, and then who knows what happened.
Do you?
How does "sterilising" the area of medics help with no other medics are available?
Fucking hell Philip you're smarter than this. Aren't you?
Scenario A: cops let self-declared medic attend to seemingly badly injured person who it turns out was only winded. Self-declared medic injects him with deadly compound by mistake and kills said wounded person stone dead.
Then what?
Throw around all the hypothetical scenarios you want, the man was f***ing shot and the cops knew that and they had no medic on scene. Prompt medical attention when someone has been shot can save someone's life.
If they had their own medic on scene who could treat him instead that would be different. They didn't and now he's dead.
Yes, I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the police would pull a medic away from someone needing treatment here in Germany (unless the medic's life was in danger if they stayed there). If they had some reason to doubt the "self-declared medic" then I suppose they could ask to see ID. My wife has a card in her wallet identifying her as a doctor, though nobody has ever asked to see it on the occasions when she has come across people needing treatment.
Absolutely. On a train, bloke keels over from a suspected heart attack, "anyone on board a doctor?", one emerges, treats the injured, saves them, perhaps some CPR, all is well, the doctor's a hero and high-fiving the police officer.
From the clip is it reasonable to say that the "medic" emerged from the same crowd of protesters as the person on the ground? Do we know how, when, or by whom the person was shot? Do we think the police officers knew he was shot? Do we know anything apart from a curated clip which people are using to fit their narrative? No. We don't.
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here. That someone was shot, and then someone else (or maybe the same person?), who was already prepared with black bag and fatal injection kit ran up to murder the injured person while pretending to be a medic? While surrounded by the police? Or that such a scenario would be a reasonable assumption by the police?
You have no idea what happened before or after that clip.
Neither do you. I am just asking you what you are suggesting that would justify the police pulling someone away from treating an injured person, because it sounds very much like you are suggesting the (imho totally implausible) scenario above. If you are suggesting something else please share.
I am saying the police arrived upon someone on the ground for reasons they might have had no idea about. Standing over that person was someone else, who self-identified as a medic. So they cleared the area. Perhaps to take stock, perhaps to call a police medic, perhaps...
What they probably couldn't do is to allow the situation to continue with someone unknown apparently wounded and someone else unknown doing something to that person with no oversight whatsoever.
Can you not see any possibilities between "no oversight whatsoever", and pulling away the person treating the injured person before any other medical help arrived?
To me that clip, coupled with the information that a medic was there and the man died, looks pretty bad, on the face of it the police did the wrong thing. Now, you might say it's not conclusive, maybe they were acting reasonably with the best intentions, maybe it wasn't really a medic, maybe the person didn't die, maybe the whole clip is fake, whatever, so don't jump to conclusions, fair enough.
But to insist the police did nothing wrong, that someone could be pretending to be a medic in order to administer a lethal injection while surrounded by police, is just silly.
As I said the twin luxuries of hindsight and the time to impose a narrative where there is not one as borne out by the raw facts are very useful for people on internet chat rooms.
The raw facts are that there was a medic on scene trying to provide medical attention, the medic was removed and no alternative medic put in her place and then the man died.
But that's the last I have to say on the matter, we're going around in circles.
And as I said at the outset, thank the lord all you do is post on internet chat rooms and can't put any of your theories into practice in the real world.
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
Private education starts with reading to your kids when they are infants.
^ This. ^
100% agreed.
Also the cheapest and single most effective bit of private education. (My kids went to state schools.)
Having read out loud the entire Harry Potter canon twice over, it is a task I would willingly have outsourced at almost any cost.
In the USA, you don't head back into your car if the police have firearms drawn on you.
In the USA I think I'd avoid police officers like the plague and lie on the ground with my hands behind my back reflexively if they ever came up to me saying, "British tourist! British tourist!".
It's highly variable and unpredictable. CHP were chill af but Tennessee State Troopers are fuckers. I once went full Smokey and the Bandit for the Virginia border rather than be pulled over by them a second time.
CHP? Do I have to Google every acronym you use?
California Highway Patrol. They pulled me over outside Fresno, called me "bro" and didn't give me a ticket because they liked my car.
Same car, different skin colour, and "bro" likely would not be how they addressed you.
In the USA, you don't head back into your car if the police have firearms drawn on you.
In the USA I think I'd avoid police officers like the plague and lie on the ground with my hands behind my back reflexively if they ever came up to me saying, "British tourist! British tourist!".
It's highly variable and unpredictable. CHP were chill af but Tennessee State Troopers are fuckers. I once went full Smokey and the Bandit for the Virginia border rather than be pulled over by them a second time.
CHP? Do I have to Google every acronym you use?
California Highway Patrol. They pulled me over outside Fresno, called me "bro" and didn't give me a ticket because they liked my car.
Same car, different skin colour, and "bro" likely would not be how they addressed you.
How do you know what Dura Ace's skin colour is?
Because they called him "bro" and didn't issue him a ticket?
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
Private education starts with reading to your kids when they are infants.
^ This. ^
100% agreed.
Also the cheapest and single most effective bit of private education. (My kids went to state schools.)
Having read out loud the entire Harry Potter canon twice over, it is a task I would willingly have outsourced at almost any cost.
Potter starts OK - funny, light, original - but by the end JKR takes it too seriously and the final 2 or 3 volumes are the dullest stuff ever penned.
If the Tories aren't going to actually pull their finger out and transition the BBC away from the license fee with an 80 seat majority then they never will. The fact they are farting about around the edges demonstrates they see whining about it is a way to get votes and nothing more. At the end of the day those at the top of the party generally agree with the Beebs worldview.
The BBCs licence fee is guaranted until 2026 from memory. I don't believe its possible to transition it away this Parliament.
They could perhaps put in new arrangements to take place from 2026, but then since the law says there must be an election by 2024 then the Opposition could just pledge to reverse those changes before they take effect.
Hopefully if this can't be dealt with this Parliament then another majority can be won and it be dealt with next time.
As no parliament can bind its successors this government can do anything it likes to the BBC and do it now - it just needs parliament to vote for it.
I am a big supporter of the BBC. But its funding model is no longer fit for purpose. Time for a subscription model like everything else we watch - it is just an option for content we watch rather than some kind of national broadcaster (who I think is Disney Plus these days...)
A house price crash would disproportionately affect home owners in their 20s and 30s with low equity. It’s electoral poison.
Does it? Surely it depends on if you're looking to move. Plenty of 50 somethings might be getting twitchy about not being able to cash-in on their London property when they retire.
Take stock and allow the medic in to continue treatment after checking ID would be reasonable. Take stock and deny treatment altogether is not.
1. Protestors oppose Trump 2. Patriots back trump 3. Protestors must be unpatriotic 4. Probably means they're being organised by ChinaCHINAchina 5. Probably makes them enemy combatants or something
The increasingly absurd veering towards fascism culture wars in America is a warning to anyone looking at wanting to do the same thing here...
Indeed, Topping's comments make perfect sense if you view the situation as a war, with people claiming to be medics possibly enemy combatants.
If the Tories aren't going to actually pull their finger out and transition the BBC away from the license fee with an 80 seat majority then they never will. The fact they are farting about around the edges demonstrates they see whining about it is a way to get votes and nothing more. At the end of the day those at the top of the party generally agree with the Beebs worldview.
The BBCs licence fee is guaranted until 2026 from memory. I don't believe its possible to transition it away this Parliament.
They could perhaps put in new arrangements to take place from 2026, but then since the law says there must be an election by 2024 then the Opposition could just pledge to reverse those changes before they take effect.
Hopefully if this can't be dealt with this Parliament then another majority can be won and it be dealt with next time.
As no parliament can bind its successors this government can do anything it likes to the BBC and do it now - it just needs parliament to vote for it.
I am a big supporter of the BBC. But its funding model is no longer fit for purpose. Time for a subscription model like everything else we watch - it is just an option for content we watch rather than some kind of national broadcaster (who I think is Disney Plus these days...)
Graphic video warning - the cops here attack and push away a medic from treating someone who has been shot. They have no other medic to treat him and he dies.
These monsters are not normal. There is no way a British cop would push away a medic from treating someone who needed it and just stand there and watch someone die refusing medical treatment.
They don't know what has happened....
And made no attempt at all to find out.
They just arrived on the scene, tried to sterilise the area getting rid of people they didn't know, and then who knows what happened.
Do you?
How does "sterilising" the area of medics help with no other medics are available?
Fucking hell Philip you're smarter than this. Aren't you?
Scenario A: cops let self-declared medic attend to seemingly badly injured person who it turns out was only winded. Self-declared medic injects him with deadly compound by mistake and kills said wounded person stone dead.
Then what?
Throw around all the hypothetical scenarios you want, the man was f***ing shot and the cops knew that and they had no medic on scene. Prompt medical attention when someone has been shot can save someone's life.
If they had their own medic on scene who could treat him instead that would be different. They didn't and now he's dead.
Yes, I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the police would pull a medic away from someone needing treatment here in Germany (unless the medic's life was in danger if they stayed there). If they had some reason to doubt the "self-declared medic" then I suppose they could ask to see ID. My wife has a card in her wallet identifying her as a doctor, though nobody has ever asked to see it on the occasions when she has come across people needing treatment.
Absolutely. On a train, bloke keels over from a suspected heart attack, "anyone on board a doctor?", one emerges, treats the injured, saves them, perhaps some CPR, all is well, the doctor's a hero and high-fiving the police officer.
From the clip is it reasonable to say that the "medic" emerged from the same crowd of protesters as the person on the ground? Do we know how, when, or by whom the person was shot? Do we think the police officers knew he was shot? Do we know anything apart from a curated clip which people are using to fit their narrative? No. We don't.
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here. That someone was shot, and then someone else (or maybe the same person?), who was already prepared with black bag and fatal injection kit ran up to murder the injured person while pretending to be a medic? While surrounded by the police? Or that such a scenario would be a reasonable assumption by the police?
You have no idea what happened before or after that clip.
Neither do you. I am just asking you what you are suggesting that would justify the police pulling someone away from treating an injured person, because it sounds very much like you are suggesting the (imho totally implausible) scenario above. If you are suggesting something else please share.
I am saying the police arrived upon someone on the ground for reasons they might have had no idea about. Standing over that person was someone else, who self-identified as a medic. So they cleared the area. Perhaps to take stock, perhaps to call a police medic, perhaps...
What they probably couldn't do is to allow the situation to continue with someone unknown apparently wounded and someone else unknown doing something to that person with no oversight whatsoever.
Can you not see any possibilities between "no oversight whatsoever", and pulling away the person treating the injured person before any other medical help arrived?
To me that clip, coupled with the information that a medic was there and the man died, looks pretty bad, on the face of it the police did the wrong thing. Now, you might say it's not conclusive, maybe they were acting reasonably with the best intentions, maybe it wasn't really a medic, maybe the person didn't die, maybe the whole clip is fake, whatever, so don't jump to conclusions, fair enough.
But to insist the police did nothing wrong, that someone could be pretending to be a medic in order to administer a lethal injection while surrounded by police, is just silly.
As I said the twin luxuries of hindsight and the time to impose a narrative where there is not one as borne out by the raw facts are very useful for people on internet chat rooms.
Hmmm. Aren't you trying to impose a narrative for which there is no evidence- that the "self-declared medic" was actually not trying to help but trying to kill the injured man? But I guess if the cap fits...
If the Tories aren't going to actually pull their finger out and transition the BBC away from the license fee with an 80 seat majority then they never will. The fact they are farting about around the edges demonstrates they see whining about it is a way to get votes and nothing more. At the end of the day those at the top of the party generally agree with the Beebs worldview.
The BBCs licence fee is guaranted until 2026 from memory. I don't believe its possible to transition it away this Parliament.
They could perhaps put in new arrangements to take place from 2026, but then since the law says there must be an election by 2024 then the Opposition could just pledge to reverse those changes before they take effect.
Hopefully if this can't be dealt with this Parliament then another majority can be won and it be dealt with next time.
As no parliament can bind its successors this government can do anything it likes to the BBC and do it now - it just needs parliament to vote for it.
I am a big supporter of the BBC. But its funding model is no longer fit for purpose. Time for a subscription model like everything else we watch - it is just an option for content we watch rather than some kind of national broadcaster (who I think is Disney Plus these days...)
The issue is that for the BBC to move to a subscription model they need to block access to their output from those who don't pay. And the BBC can't do that as they broadcast on terrestrial channels and most TVs don't support encryption cards.
So for the BBC to move to a subscription service hardware is required.
Why would the Tories care about damaging the prospects of people under 30? They've been doing it for 10 years, we don't vote for them so why would they care
If the Tories aren't going to actually pull their finger out and transition the BBC away from the license fee with an 80 seat majority then they never will. The fact they are farting about around the edges demonstrates they see whining about it is a way to get votes and nothing more. At the end of the day those at the top of the party generally agree with the Beebs worldview.
The BBCs licence fee is guaranted until 2026 from memory. I don't believe its possible to transition it away this Parliament.
They could perhaps put in new arrangements to take place from 2026, but then since the law says there must be an election by 2024 then the Opposition could just pledge to reverse those changes before they take effect.
Hopefully if this can't be dealt with this Parliament then another majority can be won and it be dealt with next time.
As no parliament can bind its successors this government can do anything it likes to the BBC and do it now - it just needs parliament to vote for it.
I am a big supporter of the BBC. But its funding model is no longer fit for purpose. Time for a subscription model like everything else we watch - it is just an option for content we watch rather than some kind of national broadcaster (who I think is Disney Plus these days...)
The issue is that for the BBC to move to a subscription model they need to block access to their output from those who don't pay. And the BBC can't do that as they broadcast on terrestrial channels and most TVs don't support encryption cards.
So for the BBC to move to a subscription service hardware is required.
I said this the other day and was shouted down.
If they decriminalise the license fee - which they should - how does the BBC recoup the lost revenue from people that don't pay a TV license? They can't
If Trump gets 28% of the African american vote then that's not just a Trump win that's a Trump landslide of epic proportions.
However if Biden gets 46% of the white vote that would be the highest percentage of the white vote for any Democratic candidate since Carter in 1976, so it balances out
Why would the Tories care about damaging the prospects of people under 30? They've been doing it for 10 years, we don't vote for them so why would they care
Why would the Tories care about damaging the prospects of people under 30? They've been doing it for 10 years, we don't vote for them so why would they care
Because eventually they will.
Didn't seem to matter when they sat around and did sweet FA for them in the last 10 years
A house price crash would disproportionately affect home owners in their 20s and 30s with low equity. It’s electoral poison.
House prices remaining broadly flat or rising below general inflation is the sweet spot.
House prices at wage to house price ratios that allow people to buy would be a better option.
You get there with flat prices. Slowly - but you do get there.
House prices went up 33% in the 10s, and apparently double that in London. Which means the rises elsewhere must have been less. Nowhere near the inflation in the 00s
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
Private education starts with reading to your kids when they are infants.
^ This. ^
100% agreed.
Also the cheapest and single most effective bit of private education. (My kids went to state schools.)
Having read out loud the entire Harry Potter canon twice over, it is a task I would willingly have outsourced at almost any cost.
My reading aloud tally included: Harry Potter (just the once), The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, all the Narnia books, Wind in the Willows, Tarka the Otter and a bunch of Pippi Longstocking books (in German). Presumably it helped - his school gave him an excellent set of GCSEs.
Graphic video warning - the cops here attack and push away a medic from treating someone who has been shot. They have no other medic to treat him and he dies.
These monsters are not normal. There is no way a British cop would push away a medic from treating someone who needed it and just stand there and watch someone die refusing medical treatment.
They don't know what has happened....
And made no attempt at all to find out.
They just arrived on the scene, tried to sterilise the area getting rid of people they didn't know, and then who knows what happened.
Do you?
How does "sterilising" the area of medics help with no other medics are available?
Fucking hell Philip you're smarter than this. Aren't you?
Scenario A: cops let self-declared medic attend to seemingly badly injured person who it turns out was only winded. Self-declared medic injects him with deadly compound by mistake and kills said wounded person stone dead.
Then what?
Throw around all the hypothetical scenarios you want, the man was f***ing shot and the cops knew that and they had no medic on scene. Prompt medical attention when someone has been shot can save someone's life.
If they had their own medic on scene who could treat him instead that would be different. They didn't and now he's dead.
Yes, I find it really hard to imagine a situation where the police would pull a medic away from someone needing treatment here in Germany (unless the medic's life was in danger if they stayed there). If they had some reason to doubt the "self-declared medic" then I suppose they could ask to see ID. My wife has a card in her wallet identifying her as a doctor, though nobody has ever asked to see it on the occasions when she has come across people needing treatment.
Absolutely. On a train, bloke keels over from a suspected heart attack, "anyone on board a doctor?", one emerges, treats the injured, saves them, perhaps some CPR, all is well, the doctor's a hero and high-fiving the police officer.
From the clip is it reasonable to say that the "medic" emerged from the same crowd of protesters as the person on the ground? Do we know how, when, or by whom the person was shot? Do we think the police officers knew he was shot? Do we know anything apart from a curated clip which people are using to fit their narrative? No. We don't.
I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here. That someone was shot, and then someone else (or maybe the same person?), who was already prepared with black bag and fatal injection kit ran up to murder the injured person while pretending to be a medic? While surrounded by the police? Or that such a scenario would be a reasonable assumption by the police?
You have no idea what happened before or after that clip.
Neither do you. I am just asking you what you are suggesting that would justify the police pulling someone away from treating an injured person, because it sounds very much like you are suggesting the (imho totally implausible) scenario above. If you are suggesting something else please share.
I am saying the police arrived upon someone on the ground for reasons they might have had no idea about. Standing over that person was someone else, who self-identified as a medic. So they cleared the area. Perhaps to take stock, perhaps to call a police medic, perhaps...
What they probably couldn't do is to allow the situation to continue with someone unknown apparently wounded and someone else unknown doing something to that person with no oversight whatsoever.
Can you not see any possibilities between "no oversight whatsoever", and pulling away the person treating the injured person before any other medical help arrived?
To me that clip, coupled with the information that a medic was there and the man died, looks pretty bad, on the face of it the police did the wrong thing. Now, you might say it's not conclusive, maybe they were acting reasonably with the best intentions, maybe it wasn't really a medic, maybe the person didn't die, maybe the whole clip is fake, whatever, so don't jump to conclusions, fair enough.
But to insist the police did nothing wrong, that someone could be pretending to be a medic in order to administer a lethal injection while surrounded by police, is just silly.
As I said the twin luxuries of hindsight and the time to impose a narrative where there is not one as borne out by the raw facts are very useful for people on internet chat rooms.
Hmmm. Aren't you trying to impose a narrative for which there is no evidence- that the "self-declared medic" was actually not trying to help but trying to kill the injured man? But I guess if the cap fits...
You and the others are using hindsight to create a narrative which even then is not wholly supported by that clip.
Over the period since the launch of the Help to Buy: Equity Loan scheme (1 April 2013 to 31 December 2019), 263,297 properties were bought with an equity loan.
The total value of these equity loans was £15.34 billion, with the value of the properties sold under the scheme totalling £70.26 billion.
Most of the home purchases in the Help to Buy: Equity Loan scheme were made by First Time Buyers, accounting for 214,064 (81 per cent) of total purchases.
The mean purchase price of a property bought under the scheme was £266,849, with buyers using a mean equity loan of £58,258.
In London, the maximum equity loan was increased from 20% to 40% in February 2016, since then to 31 December 2019 there were 18,807 completions in London, of which 16,486 were made with an equity loan higher than 20%.
A 46% rise in the attainment gap as we acknowledge that most schools didn't even get off the ground in terms of remote learning. You can be a bit cynical about the percentage and how it is measured but there is no doubt that the majority of schools failed the majority of pupils over the summer term and have done nothing since.
There seems a consensus that the exams will have to be delayed but very little constructive thought about what happens from there in terms of University applications and entrance. As my son will be going to University at the end of this school year I am watching with a fair degree of apprehension.
This is why the exams story played out as it did.
If they’d done this year’s exams as scheduled, or slightly delayed, the story would have been how disadvantaged students were ‘denied’ ‘their’ place at university, because the private schools and top Acadamies could offer distance learning and everyone had a computer.
It's why it always plays out that way. The algorithm was individually unfair but reflected the collective reality that our crap schools are, err, crap. Why the solution to that is giving prizes to all rather than actually focusing on the underlying problem of useless teaching and persistent under performance escapes me.
Ban private education. Task number 2 on the how to fix the UK in a generation or two list.
There will always be private education.
If private education were banned then all that would happen is that some state schools would become private-equivalents and the property market in their catchment area would skyrocket and wealthy parents would buy a home in that catchment area, then sell it on after their children have graduated.
Oh wait, that already happens.
Not to mention that the top boarding schools would simply relocate to Singapore or Dubai (where most of them have satellites anyway), and the world's elites would send their kids there instead - depriving the UK economy of several billion in foreign investment and billions more in goodwill and attachment that the world's rich have to the UK.
Private education is not just private schools. It is any form of private learning: tutors, music lessons, language teaching outside school etc.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
Private education starts with reading to your kids when they are infants.
^ This. ^
100% agreed.
Also the cheapest and single most effective bit of private education. (My kids went to state schools.)
Having read out loud the entire Harry Potter canon twice over, it is a task I would willingly have outsourced at almost any cost.
Fortunately for me, the books were still being written at the time, so I didn't have to deal with the later volumes. And I got to do my own character voices without the movies getting in the way.
The Tories in Scotland have been (mal)formed by decades of imposing their policies here rather than getting consent for them. They've forgotten the first rule of politics which is that your promises have to have a semblance of plausibility.
Shouldn't be surprised if the number of new lanes that they're promising on the M8 is into double figures by next May.
What was this amendment he is alleged to have vote against?
There's no allege about it. Ross voted against clause 11, an amendment to the trade bill 'which would require all future food and drink imports, plant health and environmental standards to meet or exceed the UK’s exacting food safety standards'.
It's a bit of twitter trolling.
Shock horror! Govt MP votes against Opposition amendment (which they neglected to mention in the tweet) govt thinks is not necessary because the protections are already covered.
If you read the debate (which took a bit of finding) the proposals are wildly impractical.
If Trump gets 28% of the African american vote then that's not just a Trump win that's a Trump landslide of epic proportions.
However if Biden gets 46% of the white vote that would be the highest percentage of the white vote for any Democratic candidate since Carter in 1976, so it balances out
Trump won white voters 54 - 39. Clinton won black voters 91 - 6.
Can't see Trump winning 28% of black people, Biden winning 46% of the white vote is a stretch too; but less of one.
It's basically static except Arizona where Biden has surged.
Why has he surged in Arizona?
If you run 11 state polls you'd expect to see significant movement in at least 1 even if nothing had changed.
Relevant polling outliers for Trump indicate he is close, those for Biden have him miles ahead. That in itself is telling I think and tie in with a decent but not insurmountable lead for Biden. Right now you're getting even money on a 1-2 shot I think.
If they stay flat for another 10-15 years, maybe we'll have got somewhere. Doesn't help people now though does it
Nor does a house price crash, not unless you're a cash buyer who can buy a home without a mortgage - and if you are then you're not struggling now anyway.
The only way to sustainably help people is to have wages grow faster than house prices, which is what is currently (pre-COVID) happening.
The Tories in Scotland have been (mal)formed by decades of imposing their policies here rather than getting consent for them. They've forgotten the first rule of politics which is that your promises have to have a semblance of plausibility.
Shouldn't be surprised if the number of new lanes that they're promising on the M8 is into double figures by next May.
What was this amendment he is alleged to have vote against?
There's no allege about it. Ross voted against clause 11, an amendment to the trade bill 'which would require all future food and drink imports, plant health and environmental standards to meet or exceed the UK’s exacting food safety standards'.
It's a bit of twitter trolling.
Shock horror! Govt MP votes against Opposition amendment (which they neglected to mention in the tweet) govt thinks is not necessary because the protections are already covered.
If you read the debate (which took a bit of finding) the proposals are wildly impractical.
Next?
That the Nats are going after him does rather suggest a degree of nervousness (them and the Remainer "the UK deserves Scexit because of Brexit)
If the Tories aren't going to actually pull their finger out and transition the BBC away from the license fee with an 80 seat majority then they never will. The fact they are farting about around the edges demonstrates they see whining about it is a way to get votes and nothing more. At the end of the day those at the top of the party generally agree with the Beebs worldview.
The BBCs licence fee is guaranted until 2026 from memory. I don't believe its possible to transition it away this Parliament.
They could perhaps put in new arrangements to take place from 2026, but then since the law says there must be an election by 2024 then the Opposition could just pledge to reverse those changes before they take effect.
Hopefully if this can't be dealt with this Parliament then another majority can be won and it be dealt with next time.
As no parliament can bind its successors this government can do anything it likes to the BBC and do it now - it just needs parliament to vote for it.
I am a big supporter of the BBC. But its funding model is no longer fit for purpose. Time for a subscription model like everything else we watch - it is just an option for content we watch rather than some kind of national broadcaster (who I think is Disney Plus these days...)
The issue is that for the BBC to move to a subscription model they need to block access to their output from those who don't pay. And the BBC can't do that as they broadcast on terrestrial channels and most TVs don't support encryption cards.
So for the BBC to move to a subscription service hardware is required.
So? A hardware upgrade was required when we went to digital. Give everyone 2 years to have a compatible set top box or smart TV or Chromecast / Firestick and stop FTA broadcasting. Done.
Why? I've not been complaining about bias, that's other people.
My issue with the BBC is that it is shit and I'm forced to pay for it by law if I watch other channels live. Getting rid of bias won't remove the compulsion and won't make the BBC less shit.
The Tories in Scotland have been (mal)formed by decades of imposing their policies here rather than getting consent for them. They've forgotten the first rule of politics which is that your promises have to have a semblance of plausibility.
Shouldn't be surprised if the number of new lanes that they're promising on the M8 is into double figures by next May.
What was this amendment he is alleged to have vote against?
There's no allege about it. Ross voted against clause 11, an amendment to the trade bill 'which would require all future food and drink imports, plant health and environmental standards to meet or exceed the UK’s exacting food safety standards'.
It's a bit of twitter trolling.
Shock horror! Govt MP votes against Opposition amendment (which they neglected to mention in the tweet) govt thinks is not necessary because the protections are already covered.
If you read the debate (which took a bit of finding) the proposals are wildly impractical.
Next?
That the Nats are going after him does rather suggest a degree of nervousness (them and the Remainer "the UK deserves Scexit because of Brexit)
While those Remainers ignore the fact that Scexit increases the rUK majority for hard Brexit and the chances of anotherTory majority
If the Tories aren't going to actually pull their finger out and transition the BBC away from the license fee with an 80 seat majority then they never will. The fact they are farting about around the edges demonstrates they see whining about it is a way to get votes and nothing more. At the end of the day those at the top of the party generally agree with the Beebs worldview.
The BBCs licence fee is guaranted until 2026 from memory. I don't believe its possible to transition it away this Parliament.
They could perhaps put in new arrangements to take place from 2026, but then since the law says there must be an election by 2024 then the Opposition could just pledge to reverse those changes before they take effect.
Hopefully if this can't be dealt with this Parliament then another majority can be won and it be dealt with next time.
As no parliament can bind its successors this government can do anything it likes to the BBC and do it now - it just needs parliament to vote for it.
I am a big supporter of the BBC. But its funding model is no longer fit for purpose. Time for a subscription model like everything else we watch - it is just an option for content we watch rather than some kind of national broadcaster (who I think is Disney Plus these days...)
The issue is that for the BBC to move to a subscription model they need to block access to their output from those who don't pay. And the BBC can't do that as they broadcast on terrestrial channels and most TVs don't support encryption cards.
So for the BBC to move to a subscription service hardware is required.
So? A hardware upgrade was required when we went to digital. Give everyone 2 years to have a compatible set top box or smart TV or Chromecast / Firestick and stop FTA broadcasting. Done.
Why would the Tories care about damaging the prospects of people under 30? They've been doing it for 10 years, we don't vote for them so why would they care
They've not been doing it and because the under 30s will grow up and then the Tories will want their votes once they've matured.
Comments
538 is currently giving Biden a 67% chance and this has dropped from around 80% at the end of June
I have three Trump-supporting friends who are not professional politicians or lobbyists. None are in the military, so it's not strictly on topic, but anyway. All are white males. Here are their reasons:
#1: mid-thirties, high-school educated: "Trump is great. He's funny and he f(*&s hot b%^&*$s".
#2: mid-forties, also high-school educated: works in metal-bashing manufacturing supports him because of America First trade policy.
#3: seventies, retired lawyer: likes his tax cuts and hates BLM protests. Also thinks Biden is pretty unimpressive. Doesn't like Trump's Twitter posts though.
But upon arrival all the police saw was a casualty and a crowd around that casualty with some bags. Perhaps they were trying to take the casualty's weapons and put them in their bags to hide evidence. Or perhaps they were on the other side of the "debate" to the casualty and might have wanted to "make sure" that the guy was dead.
The police knew none of that so arrived, cleared the area and then made further decisions.
To be banned?
In a free society, this cannot and should not be done.
Anyway, I will go back to the real world and leave you lot to deal with your politically-aligned fantasies.
To me that clip, coupled with the information that a medic was there and the man died, looks pretty bad, on the face of it the police did the wrong thing. Now, you might say it's not conclusive, maybe they were acting reasonably with the best intentions, maybe it wasn't really a medic, maybe the person didn't die, maybe the whole clip is fake, whatever, so don't jump to conclusions, fair enough.
But to insist the police did nothing wrong, that someone could be pretending to be a medic in order to administer a lethal injection while surrounded by police, is just silly.
Enjoy the real world. I think the guy who died found it all quite real.
Cancel culture but it's ok because it favours the right
Do you ban home schooling? Do you ban two children being home schooled together by one of their parents? Three children...
Would after school football classes be okay, but not maths classes?
Banning parental choice in education is the preserve of Soviet Russia or China.
Deputy Chairman of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party
So I think we can forget about allegations of the BBC being run by lefties now thanks
What about you?
100% agreed.
Here is the website of one:
http://www.etela-tapiola.fi/
2. Patriots back trump
3. Protestors must be unpatriotic
4. Probably means they're being organised by ChinaCHINAchina
5. Probably makes them enemy combatants or something
The increasingly absurd veering towards fascism culture wars in America is a warning to anyone looking at wanting to do the same thing here...
But that's the last I have to say on the matter, we're going around in circles.
They could perhaps put in new arrangements to take place from 2026, but then since the law says there must be an election by 2024 then the Opposition could just pledge to reverse those changes before they take effect.
Hopefully if this can't be dealt with this Parliament then another majority can be won and it be dealt with next time.
Adding more right-wing content doesn't address all the complaints does it?
(My kids went to state schools.)
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/514527-trump-warnings-on-lawlessness-divide-gop-candidates
i.) Clearly aren't racist and
ii.) Don't support BLM.
Justin Wilson for instance. https://www.youtube.com/c/AdventistHermesJustinWilson/videos
We get the weather from a Met Office scientist.
Why not balance that with a bloke called Ted and what he "reckons"?
Is it?
Just a wild guess.
I am a big supporter of the BBC. But its funding model is no longer fit for purpose. Time for a subscription model like everything else we watch - it is just an option for content we watch rather than some kind of national broadcaster (who I think is Disney Plus these days...)
Only 38% of 25 to 34-year-olds are homeowners now and the average age of first time buyers is up to 33.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47070020#:~:text=The average age of first,to be able to buy.
While 57% of those aged 35-44 are owner occupiers, 28% still privately rent within that age group and 16% live in social housing.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834603/2017-18_EHS_Headline_Report.pdf
So for the BBC to move to a subscription service hardware is required.
I'm aware of a few people who were very quick to cash in the HTB portion when cladding made their flats temporarily worthless..
If they decriminalise the license fee - which they should - how does the BBC recoup the lost revenue from people that don't pay a TV license? They can't
Philip must be gutted
Back to 2015
House prices went up 33% in the 10s, and apparently double that in London. Which means the rises elsewhere must have been less. Nowhere near the inflation in the 00s
Recently they've been broadly flat.
https://www.nationwide.co.uk/-/media/MainSite/documents/about/house-price-index/2020/Jul_2020.pdf
Jul-18 £217,010
Jun-20 £216,403
Jul-20 £220,936
80s 180% increase
90s 21%
00s 127%
10s 33%
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/883419/Help_To_Buy_Equity_Loan_Statistical_Release_2019_Q4.pdf
Over the period since the launch of the Help to Buy: Equity Loan scheme (1 April 2013 to 31 December 2019), 263,297 properties were bought with an equity loan.
The total value of these equity loans was £15.34 billion, with the value of the properties sold under the scheme totalling £70.26 billion.
Most of the home purchases in the Help to Buy: Equity Loan scheme were made by First Time Buyers, accounting for 214,064 (81 per cent) of total purchases.
The mean purchase price of a property bought under the scheme was £266,849, with buyers using a mean equity loan of £58,258.
In London, the maximum equity loan was increased from 20% to 40% in February 2016, since then to 31 December 2019 there were 18,807 completions in London, of which 16,486 were made with an equity loan higher than 20%.
https://morningconsult.com/2020/09/01/battleground-presidential-polling-post-conventions/
It's basically static except Arizona where Biden has surged.
And I got to do my own character voices without the movies getting in the way.
This is absolutely awful, what the hell is wrong with people
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/07/who-gets-to-vote-in-florida
(And why those who claim the election wasn't stolen from Gore don't know what they're talking about.)
Shock horror! Govt MP votes against Opposition amendment (which they neglected to mention in the tweet) govt thinks is not necessary because the protections are already covered.
If you read the debate (which took a bit of finding) the proposals are wildly impractical.
Next?
Clinton won black voters 91 - 6.
Can't see Trump winning 28% of black people, Biden winning 46% of the white vote is a stretch too; but less of one.
That in itself is telling I think and tie in with a decent but not insurmountable lead for Biden. Right now you're getting even money on a 1-2 shot I think.
The only way to sustainably help people is to have wages grow faster than house prices, which is what is currently (pre-COVID) happening.
In so many ways.
My issue with the BBC is that it is shit and I'm forced to pay for it by law if I watch other channels live. Getting rid of bias won't remove the compulsion and won't make the BBC less shit.
A straight lie? Or just clueless? Or a combination of the two?