Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's
I totally get that. My wife went to such a school. In one class she walked out to find somewhere else to study because kids were fighting on the desks and the teacher was unable to do anything about it. She got 4 modern studies classes in her entire school year. The rest was just crowd control from teachers who knew nothing about the subject. To make University from such a school at a time when only about 10% of the population went to University was an astonishing achievement, better than anything I have ever done. But then, she is a remarkable woman.
I left school with basically no qualifactaitons then had to spend 3 years at 6 form as the first year was gaining the o levels I would have got
I know it's a typo, and I know we all do it but qualifactations is a great word!
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
That has to be the most useless additional feature ever. You can buy some crypto (My guess you don't actually technically buy any, I bet it is you are buying the implied value of it), but you can't do anything with it.
I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.
I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.
Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.
I used to be married to a Catholic.
I didn't need to convert.
Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).
My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.
Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.
I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.
I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.
I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.
Did you show them the receipt?
Are you familiar with the work of Harry Enfield?
Calm down!
No, future FIL talked about my vehicle with his neighbours, quite a few people came out to look at it and his neighbour knew the approximate list price of it and told him.
I had a very sad experience in rural Rajasthan 35 years ago. Was having an incredibly amicable joint and chat with a cafe owner and a random me-lookalike (young, poshish, ineffectual) who had a UK magazine with him which was open at an ad for a BMW or similar so cafe-owner asks "what does a car like that cost?" I'd have said Haven't a clue, don't know much about cars. Other guy turns out to be a twat who wants to show off his mastery of exchange rates and of how to count in lakhs and crore, and tells him. And of course the answer is enough to buy the whole village, and the surrounding ten villages, leaving as much over as cafe owner would earn in about a lakh years. And it sort of killed the evening.
The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.
I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?
Mainly Muslims
Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.
Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't
I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.
But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist
Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources
British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.
Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.
I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.
On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.
If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...
Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population
It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?
As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic
Our Prime Minister is catholic.
I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.
I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.
Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.
I assume he, and many, take a Groucho Marx approach to principles, religious or political.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That has to be the most useless additional feature ever. You can buy some crypto (My guess you don't actually technically buy any, I bet it is you are buying the implied value of it), but you can't do anything with it.
I suspect there's going to be a huge clusterfuck about to happen soon in the UK for people dabbling in cryptos.
I think the major banks will start dishing out CIFAS markers to people who are using cryptos a lot.
Get a CIFAS marker and say goodbye having a bank account for the next six years. You usually get 60 days to empty the money out of your accounts which might be a challenge if you've been using cryptos.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's
That, fortunately, happens a lot less than it used to. Ofsted has got a lot of things wrong, and it has been a terrible example of institutional schizophrenia, but it has swept up the really awful don't care schools that were too common for too long.
@NorthofStoke made a really good point earlier- the change to school admissions got tangled up with some hippy-dippy ideas about how to run schools which has hindered the debate ever since.
And yes, pupils who go to grammar schools tend to do better in school and later life. But that's because of who they are, not really because of the school they go to. Equivalent children in all-comprehensive areas have pretty much the same outcomes for employment and income in their mid-20s.
For me, the question comes down to this. At the time of the Butler Act, rationing was all the rage and relatively expensive academic secondary education was a scarce resource. It made sense to ration it via the 11+. What's the scarce resource that needs carefully managed access now, and what are Conservatives doing denying access to it?
I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.
I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.
Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.
I used to be married to a Catholic.
I didn't need to convert.
Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).
My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.
Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.
I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.
I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.
I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.
Did you show them the receipt?
Are you familiar with the work of Harry Enfield?
Calm down!
No, future FIL talked about my vehicle with his neighbours, quite a few people came out to look at it and his neighbour knew the approximate list price of it and told him.
I had a very sad experience in rural Rajasthan 35 years ago. Was having an incredibly amicable joint and chat with a cafe owner and a random me-lookalike (young, poshish, ineffectual) who had a UK magazine with him which was open at an ad for a BMW or similar so cafe-owner asks "what does a car like that cost?" I'd have said Haven't a clue, don't know much about cars. Other guy turns out to be a twat who wants to show off his mastery of exchange rates and of how to count in lakhs and crore, and tells him. And of course the answer is enough to buy the whole village, and the surrounding ten villages, leaving as much over as cafe owner would earn in about a lakh years. And it sort of killed the evening.
I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.
I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.
Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.
I used to be married to a Catholic.
I didn't need to convert.
Try having my mother-in-law. Though she's a Lutheran (that's not Catholic iirc).
My in laws weren't very keen on me, nothing to do with race or religion.
Apparently as a flash Tory git I was absolutely the antithesis to a family of working class Irish/Scousers.
I merely take the view with my son, I don't care who he dates, I don't care if he gets a degree. All I ask is whatever he does he is happy.
I think it was the fact that when we first met I turned up in a vehicle that cost more than their house.
I know this will come as a galloping shock to PBers but I may come across as brash and rather self confident, which didn't go down well.
Did you show them the receipt?
Are you familiar with the work of Harry Enfield?
Calm down!
No, future FIL talked about my vehicle with his neighbours, quite a few people came out to look at it and his neighbour knew the approximate list price of it and told him.
I had a very sad experience in rural Rajasthan 35 years ago. Was having an incredibly amicable joint and chat with a cafe owner and a random me-lookalike (young, poshish, ineffectual) who had a UK magazine with him which was open at an ad for a BMW or similar so cafe-owner asks "what does a car like that cost?" I'd have said Haven't a clue, don't know much about cars. Other guy turns out to be a twat who wants to show off his mastery of exchange rates and of how to count in lakhs and crore, and tells him. And of course the answer is enough to buy the whole village, and the surrounding ten villages, leaving as much over as cafe owner would earn in about a lakh years. And it sort of killed the evening.
Interesting story. You are right: the answer in such situations is simply “money and fair words”.
That has to be the most useless additional feature ever. You can buy some crypto (My guess you don't actually technically buy any, I bet it is you are buying the implied value of it), but you can't do anything with it.
I suspect there's going to be a huge clusterfuck about to happen soon in the UK for people dabbling in cryptos.
I think the major banks will start dishing out CIFAS markers to people who are using cryptos a lot.
Get a CIFAS marker and say goodbye having a bank account for the next six years. You usually get 60 days to empty the money out of your accounts which might be a challenge if you've been using cryptos.
Doesn't Revolut also let you do a similar "dabble" to that Paypal are introducing?
And of course there is the likes of Binance who will happily take your money and BlockFi for unregulated savings and loans.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
I read the secret barrister’s book and I don’t envy anyone who has to defend in circumstances where you fear the worst. But as you say, it’s how it must be.
That has to be the most useless additional feature ever. You can buy some crypto (My guess you don't actually technically buy any, I bet it is you are buying the implied value of it), but you can't do anything with it.
I suspect there's going to be a huge clusterfuck about to happen soon in the UK for people dabbling in cryptos.
I think the major banks will start dishing out CIFAS markers to people who are using cryptos a lot.
Get a CIFAS marker and say goodbye having a bank account for the next six years. You usually get 60 days to empty the money out of your accounts which might be a challenge if you've been using cryptos.
Doesn't Revolut also let you do a similar "dabble". And of course there is Binance.
I believe so with Revolut.
I suspect most of the other banks that already haven't will follow the lead of Barclays when it comes to Binance.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's
That, fortunately, happens a lot less than it used to. Ofsted has got a lot of things wrong, and it has been a terrible example of institutional schizophrenia, but it has swept up the really awful don't care schools that were too common for too long.
@NorthofStoke made a really good point earlier- the change to school admissions got tangled up with some hippy-dippy ideas about how to run schools which has hindered the debate ever since.
And yes, pupils who go to grammar schools tend to do better in school and later life. But that's because of who they are, not really because of the school they go to. Equivalent children in all-comprehensive areas have pretty much the same outcomes for employment and income in their mid-20s.
For me, the question comes down to this. At the time of the Butler Act, rationing was all the rage and relatively expensive academic secondary education was a scarce resource. It made sense to ration it via the 11+. What's the scarce resource that needs carefully managed access now, and what are Conservatives doing denying access to it?
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
I read the secret barrister’s book and I don’t envy anyone who has to defend in circumstances where you fear the worst. But as you say, it’s how it must be.
To be honest I couldn't do it. I would not feel comfortable in myself. But I have complete respect and admiration for those that do. As I have said, without them the system simply could not work. It is noble work.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
That has to be the most useless additional feature ever. You can buy some crypto (My guess you don't actually technically buy any, I bet it is you are buying the implied value of it), but you can't do anything with it.
I suspect there's going to be a huge clusterfuck about to happen soon in the UK for people dabbling in cryptos.
I think the major banks will start dishing out CIFAS markers to people who are using cryptos a lot.
Get a CIFAS marker and say goodbye having a bank account for the next six years. You usually get 60 days to empty the money out of your accounts which might be a challenge if you've been using cryptos.
Doesn't Revolut also let you do a similar "dabble". And of course there is Binance.
I believe so with Revolut.
I suspect most of the other banks that already haven't will follow the lead of Barclays when it comes to Binance.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
Yet still 80% of the UK population say they are not atheists. So even if they do not regularly go to church, mosque or synagogue or temple the rest are still often culturally religious even if agnostic
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
Indeed. What of a person who is innocent but looks very guilty on the circumstantial evidence? Should he or she face trial without adequate representation? Down that road lies conviction before trial.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
Major misconception there unless Scots law differs from English. You can't defend someone you *know* to be guilty, you can only advise them to plead guilty, and refuse to act if they won't. You may have fairly strong suspicions, but the whole system is built round people not being condemned merely on the basis of strong suspicions. Think about it: under your system the jury would look at a defendant, see he was representing himself, and conclude the he must be guilty because none of the defence lawyers will touch him.
That has to be the most useless additional feature ever. You can buy some crypto (My guess you don't actually technically buy any, I bet it is you are buying the implied value of it), but you can't do anything with it.
I suspect there's going to be a huge clusterfuck about to happen soon in the UK for people dabbling in cryptos.
I think the major banks will start dishing out CIFAS markers to people who are using cryptos a lot.
Get a CIFAS marker and say goodbye having a bank account for the next six years. You usually get 60 days to empty the money out of your accounts which might be a challenge if you've been using cryptos.
Doesn't Revolut also let you do a similar "dabble". And of course there is Binance.
I believe so with Revolut.
I suspect most of the other banks that already haven't will follow the lead of Barclays when it comes to Binance.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.
If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars
The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?
I think the solution to the grammar/comprehensive debate is perhaps having more large and better funded 6th form colleges. There are way too many schools (including a number of grammars) with inadequate 6th form provision, and the advantages in offering a full range of subjects, and specialist subject teachers at A Level are undeniable. And they provide a great escape option for those who are academically inclined and might otherwise be stuck in a poor comprehensive.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
The majority of Britons are of no religion. On any reasonable metric, the UK is one of the most irreligious countries in the world: and Bozza is no exception.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
What happens if the defendant has told him.... privately... that he did it though ?
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
I sat it in Germany in an Army school which operated under the English system but I don't think you can be right Stuart. When I went to Harris Academy in Dundee (which I left in 1977) my year was the first "comprehensive" year and the year above us had been selected on a grammar school basis. The school very much still had that grammar school ethos and performed really well academically.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
Indeed. Rather like Mrs Anab who in 2011 ticked CoE - despite not believing in any god.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
The majority of Britons are of no religion. On any reasonable metric, the UK is one of the most irreligious in the world: and Bozza is no exception.
Even on that link only 25% of the UK population say they do not believe in God. 38% of the UK population however say they are Christian so there are still more Christians than atheists in the UK.
The rest are some form of agnostic or other religion.
As I said earlier as we continue to get more Muslim and Hindu immigrants from Asia and more evangelical Christian immigrants from Africa and Orthodox and Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe we will become less secular than we are now and more religious again in future decades, especially as the most religious have more children than non believers do
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's
That, fortunately, happens a lot less than it used to. Ofsted has got a lot of things wrong, and it has been a terrible example of institutional schizophrenia, but it has swept up the really awful don't care schools that were too common for too long.
@NorthofStoke made a really good point earlier- the change to school admissions got tangled up with some hippy-dippy ideas about how to run schools which has hindered the debate ever since.
And yes, pupils who go to grammar schools tend to do better in school and later life. But that's because of who they are, not really because of the school they go to. Equivalent children in all-comprehensive areas have pretty much the same outcomes for employment and income in their mid-20s.
For me, the question comes down to this. At the time of the Butler Act, rationing was all the rage and relatively expensive academic secondary education was a scarce resource. It made sense to ration it via the 11+. What's the scarce resource that needs carefully managed access now, and what are Conservatives doing denying access to it?
On your link 32% of grammar pupils went to a Russell Group university compared to only 23% of matched pupils and just 6% of pupils overall elsewhere.
They also earnt more than pupils in non selective authorities, albeit about the same as matched pupils in their first jobs
How many times are you going to repeat that stat without understanding it is nonsense. It is true but only because you have selected at 11. If you prevent those that have no hope of going to university from going to the grammar school and put them all in another school it will skew the figures for both schools. Even if the comp out performs the grammar school on equally academic pupils the manipulation at 11 of shoving the non academic into one school skews the figures. You are not comparing like with like. The real test is what the outcome is for equally talented pupils and you are not providing that stat.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.
If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars
The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?
I think the solution to the grammar/comprehensive debate is perhaps having more large and better funded 6th form colleges. There are way too many schools (including a number of grammars) with inadequate 6th form provision, and the advantages in offering a full range of subjects, and specialist subject teachers at A Level are undeniable. And they provide a great escape option for those who are academically inclined and might otherwise be stuck in a poor comprehensive.
Dangerous. They might end up competing wit the children of the Tories and their target voters. Can't have that. Got to get back to the good old 1950s when people knew their place, hah?
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
What happens if the defendant has told him.... privately... that he did it though ?
For the record, Stuart, I did make sure that my Germany article quoted odds from multiple non-Smarkets websites. Never let it be said that we are completely unresponsive to feedback!
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
The majority of Britons are of no religion. On any reasonable metric, the UK is one of the most irreligious in the world: and Bozza is no exception.
Even on that link only 25% of the UK population say they do not believe in God. 38% of the UK population however say they are Christian so there are still more Christians than atheists in the UK.
The rest are some form of agnostic or other religion.
As I said earlier as we continue to get more Muslim and Hindu immigrants from Asia and more evangelical Christian immigrants from Africa and Orthodox and Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe we will become less secular than we are now and more religious again in future decades, especially as the most religious have more children than non believers do
IA very strange picture to paint given Conservative party promises before and after Brexit.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
I sat it in Germany in an Army school which operated under the English system but I don't think you can be right Stuart. When I went to Harris Academy in Dundee (which I left in 1977) my year was the first "comprehensive" year and the year above us had been selected on a grammar school basis. The school very much still had that grammar school ethos and performed really well academically.
We must be much of an age. I left Plympton Grammar in 1977. My school at 11+ was a Combined Service Education Authority school in Cyprus (Campbell Junior)
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
What happens if the defendant has told him.... privately... that he did it though ?
Then you are restricted to testing the Crown case. You cannot suggest anyone is lying but you are entitled, indeed obliged, to highlight any lacunae in the evidence. The onus of proof is always on the Crown. The defence do not need to prove anything. In reality, it might be suggested that alternative counsel was instructed but it does happen.
The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.
I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?
Mainly Muslims
Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.
Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't
I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.
But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist
Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources
British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.
Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.
I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.
On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.
If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...
Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population
It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?
As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic
Our Prime Minister is catholic.
I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.
I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.
Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.
I had to get secretly baptised (that's the Protestant one right?) because my mother-in-law insisted on it and I wanted an easy life. Makes no difference to me, now I pay lip service to a church in Switzerland and to a temple in North East London.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.
If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars
The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?
I think the solution to the grammar/comprehensive debate is perhaps having more large and better funded 6th form colleges. There are way too many schools (including a number of grammars) with inadequate 6th form provision, and the advantages in offering a full range of subjects, and specialist subject teachers at A Level are undeniable. And they provide a great escape option for those who are academically inclined and might otherwise be stuck in a poor comprehensive.
Yes, I think that helps. Where I did my O and A levels in Hampshire the Secondary Moderns all became Comprehensives and the Grammar School the 6th form College for 4 feeder schools.
No one opposes academic selection at age 18 for University, and everyone would think it absurd at age 5 for Primary School. The 11+ is not at agood age to judge ability. 14+ would be better, but better still streaming and a separate Sixth Form.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's
That, fortunately, happens a lot less than it used to. Ofsted has got a lot of things wrong, and it has been a terrible example of institutional schizophrenia, but it has swept up the really awful don't care schools that were too common for too long.
@NorthofStoke made a really good point earlier- the change to school admissions got tangled up with some hippy-dippy ideas about how to run schools which has hindered the debate ever since.
And yes, pupils who go to grammar schools tend to do better in school and later life. But that's because of who they are, not really because of the school they go to. Equivalent children in all-comprehensive areas have pretty much the same outcomes for employment and income in their mid-20s.
For me, the question comes down to this. At the time of the Butler Act, rationing was all the rage and relatively expensive academic secondary education was a scarce resource. It made sense to ration it via the 11+. What's the scarce resource that needs carefully managed access now, and what are Conservatives doing denying access to it?
On your link 32% of grammar pupils went to a Russell Group university compared to only 23% of matched pupils and just 6% of pupils overall elsewhere.
They also earnt more than pupils in non selective authorities, albeit about the same as matched pupils in their first jobs
How many times are you going to repeat that stat without understanding it is nonsense. It is true but only because you have selected at 11. If you prevent those that have no hope of going to university from going to the grammar school and put them all in another school it will skew the figures for both schools. Even if the comp out performs the grammar school on equally academic pupils the manipulation at 11 of shoving the non academic into one school skews the figures. You are not comparing like with like. The real test is what the outcome is for equally talented pupils and you are not providing that stat.
Yes. (And I think this is an example of Simpson's Paradox.)
Imagine there are two school districts with 100 equally capable pupils. In one there are four comprehensives, and in the other one grammar and three secondary moderns.
In school district one, each school gets three children into Oxbridge. For an individual kid at the school, their change of making it to Oxbridge is 12%.
In the other school district, none of the children from secondary moderns make it to Oxbridge, but 10 of the grammar school's 25 kids do. That means that 40% of grammar school kids make it to Oxbridge, against 12% of comprehensive school kids.
So, that means that the grammar school boosts Oxbridge entrance, right?
No. 12 pupils out 100 from the comprehensive school district made it to Oxbridge, against 10 out of 100 from the grammar/secondary modern district.
Now, I don't know what the real world answers are - and it might well be that grammar schools improve the educational achievements of all. But what I do know, is that just looking at Oxbridge entrance rates for grammar schools and comparing them to the rates for comprehensive schools is spectacularly statistically stupid.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's
That, fortunately, happens a lot less than it used to. Ofsted has got a lot of things wrong, and it has been a terrible example of institutional schizophrenia, but it has swept up the really awful don't care schools that were too common for too long.
@NorthofStoke made a really good point earlier- the change to school admissions got tangled up with some hippy-dippy ideas about how to run schools which has hindered the debate ever since.
And yes, pupils who go to grammar schools tend to do better in school and later life. But that's because of who they are, not really because of the school they go to. Equivalent children in all-comprehensive areas have pretty much the same outcomes for employment and income in their mid-20s.
For me, the question comes down to this. At the time of the Butler Act, rationing was all the rage and relatively expensive academic secondary education was a scarce resource. It made sense to ration it via the 11+. What's the scarce resource that needs carefully managed access now, and what are Conservatives doing denying access to it?
On your link 32% of grammar pupils went to a Russell Group university compared to only 23% of matched pupils and just 6% of pupils overall elsewhere.
They also earnt more than pupils in non selective authorities, albeit about the same as matched pupils in their first jobs
How many times are you going to repeat that stat without understanding it is nonsense. It is true but only because you have selected at 11. If you prevent those that have no hope of going to university from going to the grammar school and put them all in another school it will skew the figures for both schools. Even if the comp out performs the grammar school on equally academic pupils the manipulation at 11 of shoving the non academic into one school skews the figures. You are not comparing like with like. The real test is what the outcome is for equally talented pupils and you are not providing that stat.
We have not had a single fully comprehensive educated PM yet, from 1964 to 1997 we had nothing but grammar school and mainly Oxford educated PMs which says enough in itself. The biggest gainers from the scrapping of grammars was the privately educated who now dominate the top ranks of the law, medicine and politics and other professions as they have less competition.
I have already said on the link 32% of grammar school pupils went to Russell Group universities compared to only 23% of equally academically matched pupils at comprehensives
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
I sat it in Germany in an Army school which operated under the English system but I don't think you can be right Stuart. When I went to Harris Academy in Dundee (which I left in 1977) my year was the first "comprehensive" year and the year above us had been selected on a grammar school basis. The school very much still had that grammar school ethos and performed really well academically.
We must be much of an age. I left Plympton Grammar in 1977. My school at 11+ was a Combined Service Education Authority school in Cyprus (Campbell Junior)
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
Oh, thank God. I thought I might have to explain the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", why lawyers don't decide guilt and the existence of miscarriages of justice.
Now I can go back to watching "Bent Coppers" on iPlayer - absolutely unmissable - about the state of the Met in the 1970's.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.
If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars
The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?
I think the solution to the grammar/comprehensive debate is perhaps having more large and better funded 6th form colleges. There are way too many schools (including a number of grammars) with inadequate 6th form provision, and the advantages in offering a full range of subjects, and specialist subject teachers at A Level are undeniable. And they provide a great escape option for those who are academically inclined and might otherwise be stuck in a poor comprehensive.
Yes, I think that helps. Where I did my O and A levels in Hampshire the Secondary Moderns all became Comprehensives and the Grammar School the 6th form College for 4 feeder schools.
No one opposes academic selection at age 18 for University, and everyone would think it absurd at age 5 for Primary School. The 11+ is not at agood age to judge ability. 14+ would be better, but better still streaming and a separate Sixth Form.
The comprehensive I went to before Plympton Grammar had streaming, with mobility between streams based on performance. Not a bad model.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
Keep trying.
Makes a change from ignoring the Scottish Greens when discussing the pro-indy balance in the Holyrood Parliament.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
You know I am a diehard Tory and that includes supporting grammar schools, you know I will never agree with you but if you insist on arguing the point I will respond
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
The majority of Britons are of no religion. On any reasonable metric, the UK is one of the most irreligious in the world: and Bozza is no exception.
Even on that link only 25% of the UK population say they do not believe in God. 38% of the UK population however say they are Christian so there are still more Christians than atheists in the UK.
The rest are some form of agnostic or other religion.
As I said earlier as we continue to get more Muslim and Hindu immigrants from Asia and more evangelical Christian immigrants from Africa and Orthodox and Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe we will become less secular than we are now and more religious again in future decades, especially as the most religious have more children than non believers do
IA very strange picture to paint given Conservative party promises before and after Brexit.
The promise was to treat EU migrants on the same basis as non EU migrants, delivered via a points system for all migrants to the UK EU or non EU
Maybe it's "the future" but from what I've read it's more likely it's a lot of bollocks built on sand.
I never invest in things I don't understand and despite months and months of reading, I just do not understand crypto or its uses. So I stay well clear
Maybe it's "the future" but from what I've read it's more likely it's a lot of bollocks built on sand.
That's what i thought when all my poker playing associates told me about bitcoin back in the day...and now they are all multi-millionaires and never have to work a day in their life....
And that's what i thought when an employee left to go and work on blockchain tech 5 years ago and is now a multi-millionaire and never have to work a day in their life....
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
The majority of Britons are of no religion. On any reasonable metric, the UK is one of the most irreligious in the world: and Bozza is no exception.
Even on that link only 25% of the UK population say they do not believe in God. 38% of the UK population however say they are Christian so there are still more Christians than atheists in the UK.
The rest are some form of agnostic or other religion.
As I said earlier as we continue to get more Muslim and Hindu immigrants from Asia and more evangelical Christian immigrants from Africa and Orthodox and Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe we will become less secular than we are now and more religious again in future decades, especially as the most religious have more children than non believers do
PBers have been predicting a resurgence in religiosity since the year dot. I remember Sean spending whole night arguing the point a decade ago. What happened, in fact, was the opposite: Britons are losing their religion on a grand scale.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
I sat it in Germany in an Army school which operated under the English system but I don't think you can be right Stuart. When I went to Harris Academy in Dundee (which I left in 1977) my year was the first "comprehensive" year and the year above us had been selected on a grammar school basis. The school very much still had that grammar school ethos and performed really well academically.
We must be much of an age. I left Plympton Grammar in 1977. My school at 11+ was a Combined Service Education Authority school in Cyprus (Campbell Junior)
Born in 1961.
1958, a couple of weeks before the first commercial Boeing 707 transatlantic flight.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
What happens if the defendant has told him.... privately... that he did it though ?
Then you are restricted to testing the Crown case. You cannot suggest anyone is lying but you are entitled, indeed obliged, to highlight any lacunae in the evidence. The onus of proof is always on the Crown. The defence do not need to prove anything. In reality, it might be suggested that alternative counsel was instructed but it does happen.
You can’t suggest a witness is lying, even if their lie is unrelated to your client’s guilt and your knowledge of it?
The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
Hello there. Firstly, a clarification because checking on PT replies I see you thought my comment yesterday about Talking Pints on GB News was derogatory towards you. Was mortified. Did not mean it that way at all. It was a genuine recommendation of something on TV I thought you'd like. Farage is your favourite politician (you've said so many times) and his guest was indeed darts legend Bobby George (and we both like darts). But anyway. No biggie.
I just have a question regarding your "multicultural doesn't work" sentiment. The incomer cultures that you see as a net negative for life in England - in practice do you mainly mean Muslims or is it much wider than this?
Mainly Muslims
Thanks. That's what I thought. So you're more of an "Isam and the West don't mix" kinda guy than the full Enoch.
Even two of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, admitted they hadn't really thought it through. They were amazed that Muslims took their religion so seriously. I think they mistakenly thought Muslims were so desperate to live in the UK that they would renounce their beliefs, the way so many Westerners have, and become secularists, but the problem is a great many, probably a majority, don't
I say "problem" as "problem for smooth assimilation and peaceful society", not that their beliefs are a problem.
But do you honestly think that, if in the 60s when Multiculuralism and mass immigration were being debated, you would have shown people 7/7, Lee Rigby, BLM marches etc, there would be many people saying"Bring it on"? They would have called you a scaremongering racist
Enoch thought the only way out of the mess, if repatriation didn't happen, was inter racial marriage, and in terms of the immigrants from the caribbean, that has happened. The Windrush immigrants were already practically Brits abroad anyway, the only difference was their colour, which is only really a problem because it is a fault line when tensions rise, in overcrowded, poor sections of society when people are scrapping for resources
British Indians have a lot of interracial marriages. Case in point right here. Quite a few of my cousins as well have married non-Indians. One of my uncles led the way and dealt with the bullshit 30 years ago and now it's extremely uncontroversial. I think if my grandma was alive she wouldn't be speaking to me but that's her narrow minded attitude and her problem. That generation is dying off though and so are those old school ideas.
Sweeping generalisation but the Indian community just seems more integrated and happy than the Pakistani. As I said, sweeping generalisation. Is Islam the issue? Certainly the more hard line Islam interpretations seem antithetical to the British way of life in the 21st century. I’m sure this is unfair on 95% of Muslims in the U.K., but we only seem to hear from the 5%, and they just seem not to like it here.
I think Hindu and Muslim Indians are far more relaxed about losing our religion (but maybe not our culture) than Pakistani Muslims. It makes us much more secure in our actions - such as marrying outside of our religion and culture - and not imposing our values on other people.
On the 95/5 split I don't think that's true for any group of people. I don't think 95% of white British people are comfortable with interracial marriage (or children born out of wedlock). I think part of it is that Indian people who arrived in the 60s and 70s are much more likely to have lived in a secular country before coming to the UK, either in Africa during the Empire or actually in India which was also secular after independence (and still is). Most Indian people have legitimately never experienced living in a religious country under any kind of values system that was written over a thousand years ago and then not updated for modern life. It's an alien concept and adjusting to the UK is very easy because of that IMO.
If I was to take a guess on Indians being comfortable with modern secular life it would be something like 80%, for Pakistanis I'd guess at maybe 30% who are comfortable with secular ideals, another 30% who tolerate it and 40% who find it an alien concept and think religion trumps the law of the land. That's proper finger in the air stuff though, loosely based on personal anecdote of having Muslim friends and meeting their parents etc...
Of course as we continue to get immigration from Asian Muslims and evangelical Christian Africans and Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Europeans in future decades we will become a less secular and more religious country too again as the largely secular white British majority becomes smaller as a percentage of the population
It's a race, though. It has only taken one generation to secularise the white British majority. Why should the offspring of these incomers necessarily be different?
As more and more religious immigrants will join them, by 2100 the white British born will likely be a minority in the UK, only Eastern Europe will still be majority white and of course Eastern Europe is generally more religious than we are. Poland for example is very Catholic
Our Prime Minister is catholic.
I think he's on the opposite side of the fence to me.
I wouldn't convert because I don't believe in it and it's not part of who I am nor my identity, so it wouldn't be sincere.
Boris probably took the view that if it gets him a good shag it's worth it.
I had to get secretly baptised (that's the Protestant one right?) because my mother-in-law insisted on it and I wanted an easy life. Makes no difference to me, now I pay lip service to a church in Switzerland and to a temple in North East London.
Yes, that's where you and I might be different.
It just didn't seem like it was worth the drama. We would have got married anyway and my mother-in-law would just have been upset by it and caused a bunch of drama for no reason. Given that I'm not religious it makes no difference to me. I found it a bit sad that she was so insistent on it given my obvious lack of belief but she's really quite an awful person.
It's the same reason I go to the temple when my mum bothers me to do it. Why have the argument when it's maybe a couple of hours out of my life once or twice a year. With this one I don't even need to bother given we don't live in Switzerland.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
You know I am a diehard Tory and that includes supporting grammar schools, you know I will never agree with you but if you insist on arguing the point I will respond
Not getting at you HYUFD just amusing that unlike normal the discussion has jumped threads and not due to you either so no criticism, just a joke that it may continue forever.
So, many, many congratulations to France here. More 1st vaccinations and more completes than the UK, as of today. But you might be left wondering how they've managed it, given that the populations are almost exactly the same and they've delivered fewer doses? (1/5)
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
You know I am a diehard Tory and that includes supporting grammar schools, you know I will never agree with you but if you insist on arguing the point I will respond
Not getting at you HYUFD just amusing that unlike normal the discussion has jumped threads and not due to you either so no criticism, just a joke that it may continue forever.
I hope not as I need to do the ironing so will leave it there
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
The majority of Britons are of no religion. On any reasonable metric, the UK is one of the most irreligious in the world: and Bozza is no exception.
Even on that link only 25% of the UK population say they do not believe in God. 38% of the UK population however say they are Christian so there are still more Christians than atheists in the UK.
The rest are some form of agnostic or other religion.
As I said earlier as we continue to get more Muslim and Hindu immigrants from Asia and more evangelical Christian immigrants from Africa and Orthodox and Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe we will become less secular than we are now and more religious again in future decades, especially as the most religious have more children than non believers do
IA very strange picture to paint given Conservative party promises before and after Brexit.
The promise was to treat EU migrants on the same basis as non EU migrants, delivered via a points system for all migrants to the UK EU or non EU
But also to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. Mr CAmeron, remember?
The immigrants would have to breed VERY fast to have such a strong effect as you predict.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.
If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars
The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?
I think the solution to the grammar/comprehensive debate is perhaps having more large and better funded 6th form colleges. There are way too many schools (including a number of grammars) with inadequate 6th form provision, and the advantages in offering a full range of subjects, and specialist subject teachers at A Level are undeniable. And they provide a great escape option for those who are academically inclined and might otherwise be stuck in a poor comprehensive.
Yes, I think that helps. Where I did my O and A levels in Hampshire the Secondary Moderns all became Comprehensives and the Grammar School the 6th form College for 4 feeder schools.
No one opposes academic selection at age 18 for University, and everyone would think it absurd at age 5 for Primary School. The 11+ is not at agood age to judge ability. 14+ would be better, but better still streaming and a separate Sixth Form.
I think the answer is simply to offer everyone the same choices that those choosing private education have, which is a free market.
Parents choose the school at which they think their child will thrive, and that can vary by child. Academic selection at 11+ is perhaps just a proxy for a good school with good standards but it's far better to have a wider and broader choice of school - in size, style, culture, values, curriculum, facilities, subject emphasis and teaching approaches.
Of course, most people have restricted choice as they have to stay within the state system, but we know people act differently when they can afford to do so (as above) so I've never had a problem with education vouchers.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's
That, fortunately, happens a lot less than it used to. Ofsted has got a lot of things wrong, and it has been a terrible example of institutional schizophrenia, but it has swept up the really awful don't care schools that were too common for too long.
@NorthofStoke made a really good point earlier- the change to school admissions got tangled up with some hippy-dippy ideas about how to run schools which has hindered the debate ever since.
And yes, pupils who go to grammar schools tend to do better in school and later life. But that's because of who they are, not really because of the school they go to. Equivalent children in all-comprehensive areas have pretty much the same outcomes for employment and income in their mid-20s.
For me, the question comes down to this. At the time of the Butler Act, rationing was all the rage and relatively expensive academic secondary education was a scarce resource. It made sense to ration it via the 11+. What's the scarce resource that needs carefully managed access now, and what are Conservatives doing denying access to it?
On your link 32% of grammar pupils went to a Russell Group university compared to only 23% of matched pupils and just 6% of pupils overall elsewhere.
They also earnt more than pupils in non selective authorities, albeit about the same as matched pupils in their first jobs
How many times are you going to repeat that stat without understanding it is nonsense. It is true but only because you have selected at 11. If you prevent those that have no hope of going to university from going to the grammar school and put them all in another school it will skew the figures for both schools. Even if the comp out performs the grammar school on equally academic pupils the manipulation at 11 of shoving the non academic into one school skews the figures. You are not comparing like with like. The real test is what the outcome is for equally talented pupils and you are not providing that stat.
We have not had a single fully comprehensive educated PM yet, from 1964 to 1997 we had nothing but grammar school and mainly Oxford educated PMs which says enough in itself. The biggest gainers from the scrapping of grammars was the privately educated who now dominate the top ranks of the law, medicine and politics and other professions as they have less competition.
I have already said on the link 32% of grammar school pupils went to Russell Group universities compared to only 23% of equally academically matched pupils at comprehensives
How are the comps equally matched when the grammars selected and the comps didn't?
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.
If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars
The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?
I think the solution to the grammar/comprehensive debate is perhaps having more large and better funded 6th form colleges. There are way too many schools (including a number of grammars) with inadequate 6th form provision, and the advantages in offering a full range of subjects, and specialist subject teachers at A Level are undeniable. And they provide a great escape option for those who are academically inclined and might otherwise be stuck in a poor comprehensive.
Yes, I think that helps. Where I did my O and A levels in Hampshire the Secondary Moderns all became Comprehensives and the Grammar School the 6th form College for 4 feeder schools.
No one opposes academic selection at age 18 for University, and everyone would think it absurd at age 5 for Primary School. The 11+ is not at agood age to judge ability. 14+ would be better, but better still streaming and a separate Sixth Form.
My children were at grammar school. They went on to a 6th form college (whose academic entry requirements for those in the catchment area were minimal) by their choice. Academic excellence at sixth for level doesn’t require selection - if you’re good enough to apply for Oxbridge it won’t hamper you in the slightest if the teaching is good - and the much larger and diverse 6th form is great preparation for university.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
Keep trying.
Makes a change from ignoring the Scottish Greens when discussing the pro-indy balance in the Holyrood Parliament.
Who on earth would want to ignore the Greens when discussing the coalition of chaos? They add enormously to the hilarity of the situation and make the SNP look less like a serious party. A massive, and in fairness unusual, strategic error by Nicola.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
The majority of Britons are of no religion. On any reasonable metric, the UK is one of the most irreligious in the world: and Bozza is no exception.
Even on that link only 25% of the UK population say they do not believe in God. 38% of the UK population however say they are Christian so there are still more Christians than atheists in the UK.
The rest are some form of agnostic or other religion.
As I said earlier as we continue to get more Muslim and Hindu immigrants from Asia and more evangelical Christian immigrants from Africa and Orthodox and Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe we will become less secular than we are now and more religious again in future decades, especially as the most religious have more children than non believers do
PBers have been predicting a resurgence in religiosity since the year dot. I remember Sean spending whole night arguing the point a decade ago. What happened, in fact, was the opposite: Britons are losing their religion on a grand scale.
They aren't really, just more C of Es in name only from a decade or two ago who never went to church now say they are agnostics and still don't go to church.
In any case this is likely to be peak secular UK, as you say the developing world in particular is far more religious than we are.
As we continue to get more immigration from the developing world in Asia or Africa and from Eastern Europe then the percentage of our population that is religious will increase again even if the percentage of white mainly secular Britons stays as non religious as now or becomes even less religious. That is because the percentage of white secular British born within the UK population will continue to decline and because the religious breed more than atheists
Maybe it's "the future" but from what I've read it's more likely it's a lot of bollocks built on sand.
That's what i thought when all my poker playing associates told me about bitcoin back in the day...and now they are all multi-millionaires and never have to work a day in their life....
And that's what i thought when an employee left to go and work on blockchain tech 5 years ago and is now a multi-millionaire and never have to work a day in their life....
And yet I still think it is....
They might simply have been riding the best part of the bubble.
I'm sure virtual currency has a role to play in the future but I've no desire to speculate on it, particularly since it all seems rather contrived.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
The majority of Britons are of no religion. On any reasonable metric, the UK is one of the most irreligious in the world: and Bozza is no exception.
Even on that link only 25% of the UK population say they do not believe in God. 38% of the UK population however say they are Christian so there are still more Christians than atheists in the UK.
The rest are some form of agnostic or other religion.
As I said earlier as we continue to get more Muslim and Hindu immigrants from Asia and more evangelical Christian immigrants from Africa and Orthodox and Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe we will become less secular than we are now and more religious again in future decades, especially as the most religious have more children than non believers do
It's a very interesting report, covering things that we often discuss here, such as whether there is a culture war (not exactly) and whether the sense of Englishness rather than Britishness is on the rise (no). Oddly, though, the full report linked from the article doesn't discuss religion at all - there must be a supplement or something?
Maybe it's "the future" but from what I've read it's more likely it's a lot of bollocks built on sand.
I think it's very important (and I speak as a man who bought Bitcoin at $3), to put quotes around the word "investing".
Buying a productive asset - bonds, shares, real estate - is investing. It is purchasing a share of something that produces something of economic value. As a shareholder/bondholder/landholder, you are anticipating getting a share of that economic output. That is investing.
Buying bitcoin or any other crypto is not investing, because Bitcoin does not produce anything of economic value. It is speculation. It is a bet (and it is a bet) that someone will want to pay more for your bit of paper in the future than you just paid.
With that said, I recently bought some Monero (my first Crypto purchase for about seven years). So, I'm guilty too.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
Oh, thank God. I thought I might have to explain the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", why lawyers don't decide guilt and the existence of miscarriages of justice.
Now I can go back to watching "Bent Coppers" on iPlayer - absolutely unmissable - about the state of the Met in the 1970's.
Why did they feel the need to set it in the 1970s?
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
I sat it in Germany in an Army school which operated under the English system but I don't think you can be right Stuart. When I went to Harris Academy in Dundee (which I left in 1977) my year was the first "comprehensive" year and the year above us had been selected on a grammar school basis. The school very much still had that grammar school ethos and performed really well academically.
We must be much of an age. I left Plympton Grammar in 1977. My school at 11+ was a Combined Service Education Authority school in Cyprus (Campbell Junior)
Born in 1961.
Like the jaguar e type, the Tamar bridge, and Princess Di. And me.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Congratulations.
To be honest it was terrifying. I knew that if I did not bring home a conviction one or more women were going to be seriously hurt. I felt relief on the decision of the jury like I have rarely felt.
And this is what I don't understand about criminal defence law. The lawyer almost certainly knew this man was guilty and yet defended him anyway. The consequence of him being found not guilty is, as you say, extremely worrying. Had he then gone on to commit another crime the defence lawyer should be made an accessory to that crime. If criminals can't find defence lawyers in that environment then boo fucking hoo.
I completely and utterly disagree. My opponent, an experienced QC who has done both prosecution and defence did a truly excellent job. He highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown case, which were numerous. He tested the evidence of the complainers with respect, politeness and care. He made the points that could be made and ensured that the accused had a fair trial. The system simply cannot work without someone taking on and conducting that role. It is absolutely essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. I came out of that trial with my respect for him greatly enhanced.
What happens if the defendant has told him.... privately... that he did it though ?
Then you are restricted to testing the Crown case. You cannot suggest anyone is lying but you are entitled, indeed obliged, to highlight any lacunae in the evidence. The onus of proof is always on the Crown. The defence do not need to prove anything. In reality, it might be suggested that alternative counsel was instructed but it does happen.
You can’t suggest a witness is lying, even if their lie is unrelated to your client’s guilt and your knowledge of it?
To be honest I have never been in such a position but what we were taught is that you were entitled to point out deficiencies in the Crown case but not challenge the credibility of the witnesses who you knew (because your client had told you) were telling the truth. I accept that there must be some limits on that.
Maybe it's "the future" but from what I've read it's more likely it's a lot of bollocks built on sand.
I think it's very important (and I speak as a man who bought Bitcoin at $3), to put quotes around the word "investing".
Buying a productive asset - bonds, shares, real estate - is investing. It is purchasing a share of something that produces something of economic value. As a shareholder/bondholder/landholder, you are anticipating getting a share of that economic output. That is investing.
Buying bitcoin or any other crypto is not investing, because Bitcoin does not produce anything of economic value. It is speculation. It is a bet (and it is a bet) that someone will want to pay more for your bit of paper in the future than you just paid.
With that said, I recently bought some Monero (my first Crypto purchase for about seven years). So, I'm guilty too.
Here is something from my memory of moving to the Grammar school and the various speech days I attended and says something about making decisions at 11:
About 10 - 15 of us moved to the Grammar school to do our A levels. Myself and another on the Arts side were fast streamed because we performed at the very top of the Grammar school boys, but also all those who transferred were in the top quartile of the Grammar school. Now clearly although there will changes in academic ability as one gets older (and that is one of the reasons I object to Grammar schools) it will not be to that extent, which appears ridiculous. The explanation is simple. Actually the numbers who were capable of moving across was not 10 - 15 but more like 30. Only the very best moved across. Social engineering was taking place already because of decisions made at 11. At speech day it was clear that there were a huge number of boys in the Grammar school getting 1 - 4 O levels which would put them at about the 50% point at the Secondary school. They should have been learning with people of their own ability and on subjects they could thrive on rather than struggling.
The overlap in ability at 11 (one assumes if the 11 plus is accurate and I see no reason why it should not be broadly accurate) is minimal. The overlap at 16 based on a test at 11 appears to be massive.
And clearly just to answer @HYUFD point, although it has been covered by many before, even with this overlap the selection process at 11 will still ensure the Grammar school has most of the most able students and the Secondary will have a lot less plus the secondary school will have all of those that are academically challenged. So the grammar school will always perform better but it doesn't make them better schools. Only if they started with the same pupils could you judge which is the better school.
That's very interesting.
And one of the things that I think is so difficult about the grammar schools debate is that people on both sides each say things that are absolutely correct.
My personal bugbear with the grammar school system is the fact that a September baby was more than twice as likely to pass the Eleven Plus than an August one. And the fact that people mature at different ages: there are plenty of people who burn brightly at eleven, and are dullards at sixteen; and there are plenty who bloom academically only in their mid-teens.
You therefore need to have annual promotion and relegation from grammar schools, to ensure that people are with the most appropriate educational cohort. At which point the question becomes... hang on, isn't it easier to just stream?
And then there's the geography question. In low population density areas, the nearest grammar could be a long, long way away from the average kid. Whereas in large towns with public transport, that simply isn't an issue.
You need don't need promotion and relegation, most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 already.
If you want to get into Oxbridge or a top Russell Group university you are statistically far more likely to do so from a grammar than the average comp, hence for sixth form in particular many bright late developers will move to grammars
The maths of why this is both true and meaningless just goes over your head doesn't it?
I think the solution to the grammar/comprehensive debate is perhaps having more large and better funded 6th form colleges. There are way too many schools (including a number of grammars) with inadequate 6th form provision, and the advantages in offering a full range of subjects, and specialist subject teachers at A Level are undeniable. And they provide a great escape option for those who are academically inclined and might otherwise be stuck in a poor comprehensive.
Yes, I think that helps. Where I did my O and A levels in Hampshire the Secondary Moderns all became Comprehensives and the Grammar School the 6th form College for 4 feeder schools.
No one opposes academic selection at age 18 for University, and everyone would think it absurd at age 5 for Primary School. The 11+ is not at agood age to judge ability. 14+ would be better, but better still streaming and a separate Sixth Form.
The comprehensive I went to before Plympton Grammar had streaming, with mobility between streams based on performance. Not a bad model.
That's what we had. Made it much better for the minority who actually wanted to learn.
Fortunately our school had not adopted any bullshit bollocks modern teaching methods. So those of us with the ability and desire were able to do well.
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
Keep trying.
Makes a change from ignoring the Scottish Greens when discussing the pro-indy balance in the Holyrood Parliament.
Who on earth would want to ignore the Greens when discussing the coalition of chaos? They add enormously to the hilarity of the situation and make the SNP look less like a serious party. A massive, and in fairness unusual, strategic error by Nicola.
I think the PBTories - and, I suspect, I too - are underestimating the degree to which climate change will take over current politics, especially amongst the young. Which is two counts for suspecting that Ms Sturgeon is actually making an astute strategic move.
Moreover, the Greens were elected just as much as the Scottish Tories were. And they have a better sense of immediate priorities at t he highest level than Mr Ross showed in that unfortunate interview when asked what his priority would be as PM: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41029954
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
I sat it in Germany in an Army school which operated under the English system but I don't think you can be right Stuart. When I went to Harris Academy in Dundee (which I left in 1977) my year was the first "comprehensive" year and the year above us had been selected on a grammar school basis. The school very much still had that grammar school ethos and performed really well academically.
We must be much of an age. I left Plympton Grammar in 1977. My school at 11+ was a Combined Service Education Authority school in Cyprus (Campbell Junior)
Born in 1961.
Like the jaguar e type, the Tamar bridge, and Princess Di. And me.
Princess Di was the same age as me? Lordy, she always seemed so young and immature.
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
I sat it in Germany in an Army school which operated under the English system but I don't think you can be right Stuart. When I went to Harris Academy in Dundee (which I left in 1977) my year was the first "comprehensive" year and the year above us had been selected on a grammar school basis. The school very much still had that grammar school ethos and performed really well academically.
We must be much of an age. I left Plympton Grammar in 1977. My school at 11+ was a Combined Service Education Authority school in Cyprus (Campbell Junior)
Born in 1961.
1958, a couple of weeks before the first commercial Boeing 707 transatlantic flight.
Before sexual intercourse began, the Beatles' first LP and the end of the Chatterley ban!
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
For me who went to a comprehensive the good idea would have been I would have gone to a school where those who felt academic achievement was a dirty thing wouldn't have been able to make my school life a misery because I tried. I offer an example my school bag got doused in lighter fuel and set light too burning all my notes for the year.....this was in class...the teacher just looked up and sighed and went put it out and dont be silly. This was mid 80's
That, fortunately, happens a lot less than it used to. Ofsted has got a lot of things wrong, and it has been a terrible example of institutional schizophrenia, but it has swept up the really awful don't care schools that were too common for too long.
@NorthofStoke made a really good point earlier- the change to school admissions got tangled up with some hippy-dippy ideas about how to run schools which has hindered the debate ever since.
And yes, pupils who go to grammar schools tend to do better in school and later life. But that's because of who they are, not really because of the school they go to. Equivalent children in all-comprehensive areas have pretty much the same outcomes for employment and income in their mid-20s.
For me, the question comes down to this. At the time of the Butler Act, rationing was all the rage and relatively expensive academic secondary education was a scarce resource. It made sense to ration it via the 11+. What's the scarce resource that needs carefully managed access now, and what are Conservatives doing denying access to it?
On your link 32% of grammar pupils went to a Russell Group university compared to only 23% of matched pupils and just 6% of pupils overall elsewhere.
They also earnt more than pupils in non selective authorities, albeit about the same as matched pupils in their first jobs
How many times are you going to repeat that stat without understanding it is nonsense. It is true but only because you have selected at 11. If you prevent those that have no hope of going to university from going to the grammar school and put them all in another school it will skew the figures for both schools. Even if the comp out performs the grammar school on equally academic pupils the manipulation at 11 of shoving the non academic into one school skews the figures. You are not comparing like with like. The real test is what the outcome is for equally talented pupils and you are not providing that stat.
Yes. (And I think this is an example of Simpson's Paradox.)
Imagine there are two school districts with 100 equally capable pupils. In one there are four comprehensives, and in the other one grammar and three secondary moderns.
In school district one, each school gets three children into Oxbridge. For an individual kid at the school, their change of making it to Oxbridge is 12%.
In the other school district, none of the children from secondary moderns make it to Oxbridge, but 10 of the grammar school's 25 kids do. That means that 40% of grammar school kids make it to Oxbridge, against 12% of comprehensive school kids.
So, that means that the grammar school boosts Oxbridge entrance, right?
No. 12 pupils out 100 from the comprehensive school district made it to Oxbridge, against 10 out of 100 from the grammar/secondary modern district.
Now, I don't know what the real world answers are - and it might well be that grammar schools improve the educational achievements of all. But what I do know, is that just looking at Oxbridge entrance rates for grammar schools and comparing them to the rates for comprehensive schools is spectacularly statistically stupid.
There is a benefit in having all thirty Elite Uni hopefuls (the twelve who get in and the eighteen who don't) in one place- they can inspire and bounce off each other and it's easier to put together a programme to support their application. It's harder for a standard 11-18 comp to do that sort of thing well, because the numbers are smaller.
It's quite a good argument for Sixth Form Colleges, but 11-18 schools (and parents) are often unkeen on that idea.
The other question is whether the real but slightly intangible benefit to top pupils of the grammar school system is worth the very tangible disbenefit to pupils who go to Secondary Moderns. (An awful lot of which struggle to do well, because it's really hard to run a good school where all the ambitious and able children go elsewhere and your starting point is a cohort of children who perceive that they have failed something.)
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnsocial · 53m My top 3 tips for visitors to London. 1) Holborn is "ho-burn" not "Whole-born". 2) Don't go to Leicester Square unless it's specifically to the cinema. 3) Never change tube lines at Bank. Any other top 3s?
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
You know I am a diehard Tory and that includes supporting grammar schools, you know I will never agree with you but if you insist on arguing the point I will respond
Not getting at you HYUFD just amusing that unlike normal the discussion has jumped threads and not due to you either so no criticism, just a joke that it may continue forever.
I hope not as I need to do the ironing so will leave it there
Hmm, I failed my 11+. The school appealed because I was clearly the top in my entire year group. It wasn't (with all due modesty) particularly close. The appeal was refused on the basis that I had failed so badly the appeal could not be allowed.
It would take a bit of persuading given my personal history to explain why grammar schools and the 11+ was or is a good idea.
Huh? How old are you David?? The 11+ was abolished in Scotland in the early 1960s. I certainly didn’t imagine you to be 70 years old! And still not retired?
I sat it in Germany in an Army school which operated under the English system but I don't think you can be right Stuart. When I went to Harris Academy in Dundee (which I left in 1977) my year was the first "comprehensive" year and the year above us had been selected on a grammar school basis. The school very much still had that grammar school ethos and performed really well academically.
We must be much of an age. I left Plympton Grammar in 1977. My school at 11+ was a Combined Service Education Authority school in Cyprus (Campbell Junior)
Born in 1961.
1958, a couple of weeks before the first commercial Boeing 707 transatlantic flight.
Before sexual intercourse began, the Beatles' first LP and the end of the Chatterley ban!
Author about to be cancelled according to Telegraph at weekend.
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnsocial · 53m My top 3 tips for visitors to London. 1) Holborn is "ho-burn" not "Whole-born". 2) Don't go to Leicester Square unless it's specifically to the cinema. 3) Never change tube lines at Bank. Any other top 3s?
My understanding is that Boris is in reality a confirmed atheist. I think it’s possibly the first time that the leaders of both major parties are in line with the public: I.e. godless.
He isn't he is an agnostic Catholic at most. Starmer may not be religious but has said he respects faith and his wife and children are Jewish. Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
That statistic is nonsense. People just tick the box of whatever religion they were born into. Nothing to do with having any belief.
I feel this is like deja vu. I posted just this to HYUFD on the last thread. We could be into infinite posts on this and grammar schools forever. What have I done?
Keep trying.
Makes a change from ignoring the Scottish Greens when discussing the pro-indy balance in the Holyrood Parliament.
Who on earth would want to ignore the Greens when discussing the coalition of chaos? They add enormously to the hilarity of the situation and make the SNP look less like a serious party. A massive, and in fairness unusual, strategic error by Nicola.
I think the PBTories - and, I suspect, I too - are underestimating the degree to which climate change will take over current politics, especially amongst the young. Which is two counts for suspecting that Ms Sturgeon is actually making an astute strategic move.
Moreover, the Greens were elected just as much as the Scottish Tories were. And they have a better sense of immediate priorities at t he highest level than Mr Ross showed in that unfortunate interview when asked what his priority would be as PM: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41029954
The greens were elected on the back of tactical votes by SNP supporters who wanted to maximise the effect of their second vote but could not thole Alba or Salmond. Their actual support is minimal which is considerably more than Patrick Harvie deserves. But I look forward to a Scottish government opposed to developing north sea oil fields, the dualling of the A9 and many more lunacies.
Comments
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jacob-rees-mogg-defends-attendance-at-dup-fundraiser-hosted-by-ian-paisley-37772806.html
Not for that but this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58277631
Only 20% of the British public are atheist which is less than the number who are Christian, the rest are mainly some form of agnostic or Muslim, Jewish or Hindu
I think the major banks will start dishing out CIFAS markers to people who are using cryptos a lot.
Get a CIFAS marker and say goodbye having a bank account for the next six years. You usually get 60 days to empty the money out of your accounts which might be a challenge if you've been using cryptos.
@NorthofStoke made a really good point earlier- the change to school admissions got tangled up with some hippy-dippy ideas about how to run schools which has hindered the debate ever since.
And yes, pupils who go to grammar schools tend to do better in school and later life. But that's because of who they are, not really because of the school they go to. Equivalent children in all-comprehensive areas have pretty much the same outcomes for employment and income in their mid-20s.
https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2019/06/long-term-outcomes-do-grammar-schools-make-a-difference/
For me, the question comes down to this. At the time of the Butler Act, rationing was all the rage and relatively expensive academic secondary education was a scarce resource. It made sense to ration it via the 11+. What's the scarce resource that needs carefully managed access now, and what are Conservatives doing denying access to it?
And of course there is the likes of Binance who will happily take your money and BlockFi for unregulated savings and loans.
Would you really be satisfied if he was a cheerful and happy serial killer?
I suspect most of the other banks that already haven't will follow the lead of Barclays when it comes to Binance.
https://news.bitcoin.com/barclays-santander-uk-bank-natwest-blocks-payments-to-binance/
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/state-funded-schools-inspections-and-outcomes-as-at-31-march-2020/main-findings-state-funded-schools-inspections-and-outcomes-as-at-31-march-2020
On your link 32% of grammar pupils went to a Russell Group university compared to only 23% of matched pupils and just 6% of pupils overall elsewhere.
They also earnt more than pupils in non selective authorities, albeit about the same as matched pupils in their first jobs
It makes me incredibly angry that the regulators aren't making this a priority.
And they provide a great escape option for those who are academically inclined and might otherwise be stuck in a poor comprehensive.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/11/uk-secularism-on-rise-as-more-than-half-say-they-have-no-religion?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The rest are some form of agnostic or other religion.
As I said earlier as we continue to get more Muslim and Hindu immigrants from Asia and more evangelical Christian immigrants from Africa and Orthodox and Catholic immigrants from Eastern Europe we will become less secular than we are now and more religious again in future decades, especially as the most religious have more children than non believers do
(Mostly unresponsive, perhaps...)
Takes no questions and runs off...
No one opposes academic selection at age 18 for University, and everyone would think it absurd at age 5 for Primary School. The 11+ is not at agood age to judge ability. 14+ would be better, but better still streaming and a separate Sixth Form.
Imagine there are two school districts with 100 equally capable pupils. In one there are four comprehensives, and in the other one grammar and three secondary moderns.
In school district one, each school gets three children into Oxbridge. For an individual kid at the school, their change of making it to Oxbridge is 12%.
In the other school district, none of the children from secondary moderns make it to Oxbridge, but 10 of the grammar school's 25 kids do. That means that 40% of grammar school kids make it to Oxbridge, against 12% of comprehensive school kids.
So, that means that the grammar school boosts Oxbridge entrance, right?
No. 12 pupils out 100 from the comprehensive school district made it to Oxbridge, against 10 out of 100 from the grammar/secondary modern district.
Now, I don't know what the real world answers are - and it might well be that grammar schools improve the educational achievements of all. But what I do know, is that just looking at Oxbridge entrance rates for grammar schools and comparing them to the rates for comprehensive schools is spectacularly statistically stupid.
I have already said on the link 32% of grammar school pupils went to Russell Group universities compared to only 23% of equally academically matched pupils at comprehensives
Maybe it's "the future" but from what I've read it's more likely it's a lot of bollocks built on sand.
Now I can go back to watching "Bent Coppers" on iPlayer - absolutely unmissable - about the state of the Met in the 1970's.
Makes a change from ignoring the Scottish Greens when discussing the pro-indy balance in the Holyrood Parliament.
And that's what i thought when an employee left to go and work on blockchain tech 5 years ago and is now a multi-millionaire and never have to work a day in their life....
And yet I still think it is....
With whom?
What are the terms of bet?
It's the same reason I go to the temple when my mum bothers me to do it. Why have the argument when it's maybe a couple of hours out of my life once or twice a year. With this one I don't even need to bother given we don't live in Switzerland.
But you might be left wondering how they've managed it, given that the populations are almost exactly the same and they've delivered fewer doses? (1/5)
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1430261812126261251?s=20
The immigrants would have to breed VERY fast to have such a strong effect as you predict.
Parents choose the school at which they think their child will thrive, and that can vary by child. Academic selection at 11+ is perhaps just a proxy for a good school with good standards but it's far better to have a wider and broader choice of school - in size, style, culture, values, curriculum, facilities, subject emphasis and teaching approaches.
Of course, most people have restricted choice as they have to stay within the state system, but we know people act differently when they can afford to do so (as above) so I've never had a problem with education vouchers.
They went on to a 6th form college (whose academic entry requirements for those in the catchment area were minimal) by their choice. Academic excellence at sixth for level doesn’t require selection - if you’re good enough to apply for Oxbridge it won’t hamper you in the slightest if the teaching is good - and the much larger and diverse 6th form is great preparation for university.
In any case this is likely to be peak secular UK, as you say the developing world in particular is far more religious than we are.
As we continue to get more immigration from the developing world in Asia or Africa and from Eastern Europe then the percentage of our population that is religious will increase again even if the percentage of white mainly secular Britons stays as non religious as now or becomes even less religious. That is because the percentage of white secular British born within the UK population will continue to decline and because the religious breed more than atheists
I'm sure virtual currency has a role to play in the future but I've no desire to speculate on it, particularly since it all seems rather contrived.
Buying a productive asset - bonds, shares, real estate - is investing. It is purchasing a share of something that produces something of economic value. As a shareholder/bondholder/landholder, you are anticipating getting a share of that economic output. That is investing.
Buying bitcoin or any other crypto is not investing, because Bitcoin does not produce anything of economic value. It is speculation. It is a bet (and it is a bet) that someone will want to pay more for your bit of paper in the future than you just paid.
With that said, I recently bought some Monero (my first Crypto purchase for about seven years). So, I'm guilty too.
It's the 21st century version of Dutch tulips.
Fortunately our school had not adopted any bullshit bollocks modern teaching methods. So those of us with the ability and desire were able to do well.
Moreover, the Greens were elected just as much as the Scottish Tories were. And they have a better sense of immediate priorities at t he highest level than Mr Ross showed in that unfortunate interview when asked what his priority would be as PM:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41029954
I am sure a bright student psychiatrist could investigate it, publish a paper on it, and have this rare condition named after her or him.
It's quite a good argument for Sixth Form Colleges, but 11-18 schools (and parents) are often unkeen on that idea.
The other question is whether the real but slightly intangible benefit to top pupils of the grammar school system is worth the very tangible disbenefit to pupils who go to Secondary Moderns. (An awful lot of which struggle to do well, because it's really hard to run a good school where all the ambitious and able children go elsewhere and your starting point is a cohort of children who perceive that they have failed something.)
Patrick O'Flynn
@oflynnsocial
·
53m
My top 3 tips for visitors to London.
1) Holborn is "ho-burn" not "Whole-born".
2) Don't go to Leicester Square unless it's specifically to the cinema.
3) Never change tube lines at Bank.
Any other top 3s?