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.
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
The same arguments were being advanced ten years ago. Filed under Didn’t Happen.
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.
I know next to nothing about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. However, they obviously have some potential actual use for people as a currency, IE, if you were trying to flee the taliban right now, bitcoin would be a very useful thing to have. It is probably a bubble that will burst at some point, but you can definetely make money whilst the market is rising, and a lot of people have. I would buy bitcoin in the same way as you might bet on a horse.
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.
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
It would be good if the Greens became as vocal on green issues as they are on trans rights. They diluted themselves when they decided they had to have opinions on everything, but so do we all.
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!
Before sexual intercourse began Does that make mine an immaculate conception?
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!
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.
There’s an overriding principle/rule that you cannot deliberately mislead the court, isn’t 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
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.
An interesting ijnterpretation. I'm not convinced it will work out as simply as 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.
Yes, speculation - so I steer well clear.
It's the 21st century version of Dutch tulips.
Yes, but you should really consider putting $25 into Monero.
Why?
1. The rise of Bitcoin was the consequence of the Dark Web, where people bought illegal items (stolen credit card numbers, drugs, databases of passwords). This created demand for the underlying currency (the more transactions there are, the more currency there needs to be in existence to facilitate it), and that price rise started the whole crypto wave.
2. It turns out, however, that Bitcoin is nowhere near as anonymous as people thought. Indeed, it turns out that it is all to easy to track people using Bitcoin for nefarious purposes. As a result, the Dark Web is moving towards Monero.
3. The purpose of Monero was to create a truly anonymous crypto currency.
4. The total value of Monero in existence is less than 0.4% of that of Bitcoin.
I see no reason why the total value of Bitcoin should be $200bn+, as there is next to no real economic activity associated with it. But I sure as shit can see demand for a truly anonymous cryptocurrency being big. I wouldn't be surprised if Monero (if they can pair it with Lightning) was valued at more than Bitcoin five years from now.
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?
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.
Larkin or Lawrence? Would have thought there was nothing left to discover that would get Phil cancelled.
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!
Before sexual intercourse began Does that make mine an immaculate conception?
You don't want to start claiming that. Last time it caused 2000 years of trouble.
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.
Thanks. Another question if I may: how do juries react to a defendent not taking the stand and the defence explaining in closing (and the judge explaining in directions) that it isn’t their burden? I’ve never been on a jury, but it seems that it would be difficult for not to infer guilt…
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.
Yes, speculation - so I steer well clear.
It's the 21st century version of Dutch tulips.
Yes, but you should really consider putting $25 into Monero.
Why?
1. The rise of Bitcoin was the consequence of the Dark Web, where people bought illegal items (stolen credit card numbers, drugs, databases of passwords). This created demand for the underlying currency (the more transactions there are, the more currency there needs to be in existence to facilitate it), and that price rise started the whole crypto wave.
2. It turns out, however, that Bitcoin is nowhere near as anonymous as people thought. Indeed, it turns out that it is all to easy to track people using Bitcoin for nefarious purposes. As a result, the Dark Web is moving towards Monero.
3. The purpose of Monero was to create a truly anonymous crypto currency.
4. The total value of Monero in existence is less than 0.4% of that of Bitcoin.
I see no reason why the total value of Bitcoin should be $200bn+, as there is next to no real economic activity associated with it. But I sure as shit can see demand for a truly anonymous cryptocurrency being big. I wouldn't be surprised if Monero (if they can pair it with Lightning) was valued at more than Bitcoin five years from now.
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!
Before sexual intercourse began Does that make mine an immaculate conception?
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?
Mind the gap?
Stand on the right.
Don't talk on the tube.
"The Shard" is Abu Dhabi not London.
Walk - so much to see in London.
If you see Sadiq Khan run in the opposite direction.
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.
Yes, speculation - so I steer well clear.
It's the 21st century version of Dutch tulips.
Yes, but you should really consider putting $25 into Monero.
Why?
1. The rise of Bitcoin was the consequence of the Dark Web, where people bought illegal items (stolen credit card numbers, drugs, databases of passwords). This created demand for the underlying currency (the more transactions there are, the more currency there needs to be in existence to facilitate it), and that price rise started the whole crypto wave.
2. It turns out, however, that Bitcoin is nowhere near as anonymous as people thought. Indeed, it turns out that it is all to easy to track people using Bitcoin for nefarious purposes. As a result, the Dark Web is moving towards Monero.
3. The purpose of Monero was to create a truly anonymous crypto currency.
4. The total value of Monero in existence is less than 0.4% of that of Bitcoin.
I see no reason why the total value of Bitcoin should be $200bn+, as there is next to no real economic activity associated with it. But I sure as shit can see demand for a truly anonymous cryptocurrency being big. I wouldn't be surprised if Monero (if they can pair it with Lightning) was valued at more than Bitcoin five years from now.
Ethereum also has the network effect, lots of usage and lots of people throwing money at it. Unfortunately transactions can cost more than the amount a normal person would feel comfortable throwing at it for the first time - you'd have to have something wrong with you - so it is also stupid. But it could overthrow BTC for a while in marketcap.
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.
- “In Scotland, the qualifying exam or "quali", similar to the English 11-plus, was abolished in 1957.”
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.
I know next to nothing about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. However, they obviously have some potential actual use for people as a currency, IE, if you were trying to flee the taliban right now, bitcoin would be a very useful thing to have. It is probably a bubble that will burst at some point, but you can definetely make money whilst the market is rising, and a lot of people have. I would buy bitcoin in the same way as you might bet on a horse.
That sensible advice right up until the moment the market peaks (which none of us know) and then it becomes terrible advice.
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!
Before sexual intercourse began Does that make mine an immaculate conception?
It was not Jesus's conception that was immaculate.
Just listened to “The Nuremberg trials” podcast on bbc sounds from 1996.
Search “Nuremberg” on bbc sounds app.
Can’t believe the medium has been around for 25 years! It’s an important hour and a half of listening btw. I learned some new stuff too, like in his defence, how goerring fained ignorance of the nazi atrocities at Auschwitz etc. I don’t know what I assumed his defence would have been, but how the hell did he think he’d get away with that as his defence?
Idiot.
No idiot......
"Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - interview with psychiatrist, 3 January 1946 (Göring was determined to have among the highest IQs of the Nuremberg defendants)
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.
Yes, speculation - so I steer well clear.
It's the 21st century version of Dutch tulips.
Yes, but you should really consider putting $25 into Monero.
Why?
1. The rise of Bitcoin was the consequence of the Dark Web, where people bought illegal items (stolen credit card numbers, drugs, databases of passwords). This created demand for the underlying currency (the more transactions there are, the more currency there needs to be in existence to facilitate it), and that price rise started the whole crypto wave.
2. It turns out, however, that Bitcoin is nowhere near as anonymous as people thought. Indeed, it turns out that it is all to easy to track people using Bitcoin for nefarious purposes. As a result, the Dark Web is moving towards Monero.
3. The purpose of Monero was to create a truly anonymous crypto currency.
4. The total value of Monero in existence is less than 0.4% of that of Bitcoin.
I see no reason why the total value of Bitcoin should be $200bn+, as there is next to no real economic activity associated with it. But I sure as shit can see demand for a truly anonymous cryptocurrency being big. I wouldn't be surprised if Monero (if they can pair it with Lightning) was valued at more than Bitcoin five years from now.
Ethereum also has the network effect, lots of usage and lots of people throwing money at it. Unfortunately transactions can cost more than the amount a normal person would feel comfortable throwing at it for the first time - you'd have to have something wrong with you - so it is also stupid. But it could overthrow BTC for a while in marketcap.
I like Monero it makes logical sense.
Also:
Flexible block size. Low transaction costs. More rapid confirmations than either BTC or ETH.
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.
Thanks. Another question if I may: how do juries react to a defendent not taking the stand and the defence explaining in closing (and the judge explaining in directions) that it isn’t their burden? I’ve never been on a jury, but it seems that it would be difficult for not to infer guilt…
The short answer is I don't know. Everyone bends over backwards to explain the law to the Jury but they are also invited to use their common sense and where there is a case to answer (which by definition there is, if it gets to the Jury) they are looking for an explanation. Some very experienced and able QCs almost never let their clients give evidence for the very sound reason it usually helps the Crown so it is a balance of risks.
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
It would be good if the Greens became as vocal on green issues as they are on trans rights. They diluted themselves when they decided they had to have opinions on everything, but so do we all.
You're assuming they actually care about being as effective as they can be on the environment rather than achingly right-on self-absorbed virtue-signalling.
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
I have great respect for you in many areas.
But on education and what the data shows, I am sorry but you are completely wrong. I haven't replied to your posts on grammar schools etc. because I just don't know where to start and I'd have to write too much. But your analysis fails even at a very simple level, before one even starts to consider the progress/value-added measures that are more indicative of a school's success than raw examination results. It really should go without saying that if you attract the most able pupils, you should get the best results. That's all that selective education/grammar schools mean. And all the serious evidence shows that grammar school pupils would do just as well in a comprehensive - indeed, they may help to push results up for others as well.
As others have said, the single most impressive type of institution is state sixth form colleges, which are truly comprehensive. Have a look at the analysis on Oxbridge entrants here:
It's interesting. Obviously the top private schools get a lot into Oxbridge, as you'd expect of the privileged. But note that there are four state (comprehensive) sixth form colleges above any grammar schools, and many others in the top 100. Interestingly, most of the Tories with real expertise in education don't want a return to grammar schools/selective education.
I know very little, and don't pretend to know about what I don't know about. But I do know quite a lot about education and educational data.
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.
Excellent but unfortunately HYUFD has gone to do his ironing.
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.
Yes, speculation - so I steer well clear.
It's the 21st century version of Dutch tulips.
Yes, but you should really consider putting $25 into Monero.
Why?
1. The rise of Bitcoin was the consequence of the Dark Web, where people bought illegal items (stolen credit card numbers, drugs, databases of passwords). This created demand for the underlying currency (the more transactions there are, the more currency there needs to be in existence to facilitate it), and that price rise started the whole crypto wave.
2. It turns out, however, that Bitcoin is nowhere near as anonymous as people thought. Indeed, it turns out that it is all to easy to track people using Bitcoin for nefarious purposes. As a result, the Dark Web is moving towards Monero.
3. The purpose of Monero was to create a truly anonymous crypto currency.
4. The total value of Monero in existence is less than 0.4% of that of Bitcoin.
I see no reason why the total value of Bitcoin should be $200bn+, as there is next to no real economic activity associated with it. But I sure as shit can see demand for a truly anonymous cryptocurrency being big. I wouldn't be surprised if Monero (if they can pair it with Lightning) was valued at more than Bitcoin five years from now.
Ethereum also has the network effect, lots of usage and lots of people throwing money at it. Unfortunately transactions can cost more than the amount a normal person would feel comfortable throwing at it for the first time - you'd have to have something wrong with you - so it is also stupid. But it could overthrow BTC for a while in marketcap.
I like Monero it makes logical sense.
Also:
Flexible block size. Low transaction costs. More rapid confirmations than either BTC or ETH.
And when Alphabay was taken down:
"Because the website did not accept traditional payment methods, Cazes possessed more than $8.8 million in cryptocurrencies pooled across 1,605.05 bitcoins, 8,309.27 ether, 3,691.98 zcash and an unknown amount of monero..."
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!
Before sexual intercourse began Does that make mine an immaculate conception?
It was not Jesus's conception that was immaculate.
And all these years I have misunderstood immaculate conception. Just as well I was not brought up Roman Catholic.
Sadly what was flagged as the likely scenario a few days ago is exactly what is going to happen in Afghanistan. The figleaf of the Taliban allowing unrestricted exit (still not agreed) after Western forces leave is the best that can be put up and everyone knows its nonsense.
In effect the US troops are not letting Afghans into the airport, even eligible ones, pretty much US citizens only. the result is charters specifically for those Afghans arrnged by various parties are going out far from full
The fate of Afghans who worked with the US and others and havent got out, you'd have to live in a fantasy world to think anything but the worst.
The question is, how many non Afghans who wanted out wont get out? There is every sign plenty are still in kabul and other parts of the country. If the US leaves citizens behind and the Taliban simply dont let them out on civil flights this is going to follow Biden around for some time.`
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
It would be good if the Greens became as vocal on green issues as they are on trans rights. They diluted themselves when they decided they had to have opinions on everything, but so do we all.
This is what pisses me off about the Greens. They spend far too much time wibbling on about shite that has nothing to do with environmentalism or ecology.
I want to see a full fat eco-authoritarian party. Not another bunch of woke hand-wringers.
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 must admit, I don't really understand this point of view.
Would you really be satisfied if he was a cheerful and happy serial killer?
Well that is an extreme example obviously the answer is no. I meant if he was happy within human norms. For example if he wanted to be a dustman and was happy thats fine, if he wanted to be a barista thats fine, if he was happy even being a politician. I dont care what he does as a normal job as long as he is happy doing it. I dont care who he marries as long as they are both happy
The others were absolutely right to say what they did with regards to not betting only what you can afford to lose, that is good advice for anyone reading.
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!
I've always thought Johnson modelled himself on Mellors
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.
Bit unlike you David. Quite mean. In my experience, there are tons of Green-minded people in Scotland, but historically they have tended to vote for established parties. That is changing. The Greens are actually still slightly underperforming vis a vis their true support level.
How did Unionists maximise the effect of their second vote?
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!
Before sexual intercourse began Does that make mine an immaculate conception?
It was not Jesus's conception that was immaculate.
BTW, saw you comment on the loveliness of Maryland a day later. Yes, it is a very nice State, with much natural beauty, especially in the western panhandle (Appalachia) and, my favorite, the bay side of the Eastern Shore. I am sure that, in the past, I have flown direct to the UK from BWI, but atm it looks like Dulles is the only option.
We are fortunate in our location - BWI, DCA and IAD are all only 40-45 minutes away in normal traffic conditions.
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
It would be good if the Greens became as vocal on green issues as they are on trans rights. They diluted themselves when they decided they had to have opinions on everything, but so do we all.
This is what pisses me off about the Greens. They spend far too much time wibbling on about shite that has nothing to do with environmentalism or ecology.
I want to see a full fat eco-authoritarian party. Not another bunch of woke hand-wringers.
Give it 10 years and you'll have the choice of two. Labour, and tory.
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.
- “In Scotland, the qualifying exam or "quali", similar to the English 11-plus, was abolished in 1957.”
Well, I can only think that there was extensive transitional provisions. The year above me at school, who would have started secondary in 1970, had been selected on the basis of the equivalent of the 11+. In those days there were 3 grammar schools in Dundee and about 12 secondary moderns. 50 years later they are still the best 3 state schools in Dundee.
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
I have great respect for you in many areas.
But on education and what the data shows, I am sorry but you are completely wrong. I haven't replied to your posts on grammar schools etc. because I just don't know where to start and I'd have to write too much. But your analysis fails even at a very simple level, before one even starts to consider the progress/value-added measures that are more indicative of a school's success than raw examination results. It really should go without saying that if you attract the most able pupils, you should get the best results. That's all that selective education/grammar schools mean. And all the serious evidence shows that grammar school pupils would do just as well in a comprehensive - indeed, they may help to push results up for others as well.
As others have said, the single most impressive type of institution is state sixth form colleges, which are truly comprehensive. Have a look at the analysis on Oxbridge entrants here:
It's interesting. Obviously the top private schools get a lot into Oxbridge, as you'd expect of the privileged. But note that there are four state (comprehensive) sixth form colleges above any grammar schools, and many others in the top 100. Interestingly, most of the Tories with real expertise in education don't want a return to grammar schools/selective education.
I know very little, and don't pretend to know about what I don't know about. But I do know quite a lot about education and educational data.
I know plenty of private school pupils who went to sixth form colleges for A Levels, partly to make themselves look less privileged for Oxbridge entry in a few cases, the idea they are bog standard comps is ridiculous.
I accept we will remain a largely non selective system even if I prefer the grammar model, however we could at least move from the current system where you can only ballot to close grammars to one where you can hold ballots to open new grammars too if there is enough demand
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.
There’s an overriding principle/rule that you cannot deliberately mislead the court, isn’t 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.
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?
It's a documentary series - about corruption, the Vice Squad, Robert Mark etc. Fascinating stuff. Some obvious resonances with today - not least that even now the Met does not have a working definition of "corruption".
Honestly, were I Home Secretary I'd sack Cressida Dick for that alone.
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
The same arguments were being advanced ten years ago. Filed under Didn’t Happen.
The share of the non white British population is projected to increase far beyond where it is now and was 10 years ago by 2050 and as non white Britons tend to be more religious apart from Orientals that will ultimately filter through
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.
Funnily enough, the example you work through is an almost exact fit for Kent. Overall, pupils in Kent under-perform against expectations; the good performance of most (not all) of the grammar schools has a deleterious impact on the performance of the non-grammar schools, leading to an overall worse-than-expected performance in the county.
There was more freedom in 1950s Britain than in the majority of countries today.
A difficult fact to process for some.
There was really not we just werent so extreme in our punishments, the taliban throw gays of buildings we offered imprisonment or chemical castration. Unwed mothers the taliban stone to death we incarcerated them in menta asylums
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.
Funnily enough, the example you work through is an almost exact fit for Kent. Overall, pupils in Kent under-perform against expectations; the good performance of most (not all) of the grammar schools has a deleterious impact on the performance of the non-grammar schools, leading to an overall worse-than-expected performance in the county.
No it doesn't.
Kent has GCSE results at about the national average, selective Bucks and Trafford have overall GCSE results above the national average
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.
I know next to nothing about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. However, they obviously have some potential actual use for people as a currency, IE, if you were trying to flee the taliban right now, bitcoin would be a very useful thing to have. It is probably a bubble that will burst at some point, but you can definetely make money whilst the market is rising, and a lot of people have. I would buy bitcoin in the same way as you might bet on a horse.
That sensible advice right up until the moment the market peaks (which none of us know) and then it becomes terrible advice.
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)
You and francis who have devoted their posting lives to proving how much better the British are than the French -and everyone else for that matter- will have to take early retirement
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.
Excellent but unfortunately HYUFD has gone to do his ironing.
They don't teach you how to do that in grammar school, do they?
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.
Funnily enough, the example you work through is an almost exact fit for Kent. Overall, pupils in Kent under-perform against expectations; the good performance of most (not all) of the grammar schools has a deleterious impact on the performance of the non-grammar schools, leading to an overall worse-than-expected performance in the county.
No it doesn't.
Kent has GCSE results at about the national average, selective Bucks and Trafford have overall GCSE results above the national average
You're proving my point, thanks. Given its socio-economic profile, you would expect Kent to have GCSE results above the national average. It's under-performing.
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)
You and francis who have devoted their posting lives to proving how much better the British are than the French -and everyone else for that matter- will have to take early retirement
You do know its not a point to be proved...they are french we arent....qed
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.
Bit unlike you David. Quite mean. In my experience, there are tons of Green-minded people in Scotland, but historically they have tended to vote for established parties. That is changing. The Greens are actually still slightly underperforming vis a vis their true support level.
How did Unionists maximise the effect of their second vote?
I am not sure they did Stuart, hence the Independence majority.
On the Greens I think that they have influenced all the mainstream parties. I accept that they have some support, especially amongst the young who tend to focus on single issues. But Harvie remains the most annoying man in Scottish politics, and its a crowded field.
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)
You and francis who have devoted their posting lives to proving how much better the British are than the French -and everyone else for that matter- will have to take early retirement
French cheating comme d'habitude. They define "complete" to include been infected and had one jab.
The others were absolutely right to say what they did with regards to not betting only what you can afford to lose, that is good advice for anyone reading.
Bugger - does that mean I've erred in betting my house on Leeds winning the Premier League?
The others were absolutely right to say what they did with regards to not betting only what you can afford to lose, that is good advice for anyone reading.
Bugger - does that mean I've erred in betting my house on Leeds winning the Premier League?
If leeds dont win then yes though can sell you a tent
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)
You and francis who have devoted their posting lives to proving how much better the British are than the French -and everyone else for that matter- will have to take early retirement
Read the thread.
By the way - which animals do you think the RAF should be evacuating before women & children from Kabul? You posted in favour of an ex-Marine advocating that a few days ago...(but I suspect, once again, you hadn't done research...)
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.
Funnily enough, the example you work through is an almost exact fit for Kent. Overall, pupils in Kent under-perform against expectations; the good performance of most (not all) of the grammar schools has a deleterious impact on the performance of the non-grammar schools, leading to an overall worse-than-expected performance in the county.
No it doesn't.
Kent has GCSE results at about the national average, selective Bucks and Trafford have overall GCSE results above the national average
You're proving my point, thanks. Given its socio-economic profile, you would expect Kent to have GCSE results above the national average. It's under-performing.
No you wouldn't. Kent is not wealthy overall, indeed some parts of seaside and ex mining East Kent are pretty poor eg Margate and Deal and Sheppey.
Only a few parts of West Kent like Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks in the London commuter belt are what could be described as wealthy and posh, most of Kent is average income and average socioeconomically
BTW my Labour poll lead bet is very much a conviction play, I feel very strongly about it. I bet as I invest.
Looking at that artwork in the header I can't see why Labour aren't already in the lead.Those with an IQ above room temperature are overwhelmingly Johnson haters as are the salt of the earth toilers. What grouping favours the Johnson/Faragists? Is there a big missing social grouping somewhere? Hartlipudlians?
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!
BTW my Labour poll lead bet is very much a conviction play, I feel very strongly about it. I bet as I invest.
Looking at that artwork in the header I can't see why Labour aren't already in the lead.Those with an IQ above room temperature are overwhelmingly Johnson haters as are the salt of the earth toilers. What grouping favours the Johnson/Faragists? Is there a big missing social grouping somewhere? Hartlipudlians?
I believe Adlai Stevenson was once told he had the votes of all intelligent people, to which he replied he was bound to lose then as that was not enough for a majority.
Given 52% voted Leave, if Boris keeps most of that he wins
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
I know very little, and don't pretend to know about what I don't know about.
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
I know very little, and don't pretend to know about what I don't know about.
Are you inadvertently on the wrong site?
Yes, probably. Or maybe just false modesty? Mind you, I know quite a lot about cricket as well as education, so maybe I'll be allowed to continue on here?
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.
- “In Scotland, the qualifying exam or "quali", similar to the English 11-plus, was abolished in 1957.”
Well, I can only think that there was extensive transitional provisions. The year above me at school, who would have started secondary in 1970, had been selected on the basis of the equivalent of the 11+. In those days there were 3 grammar schools in Dundee and about 12 secondary moderns. 50 years later they are still the best 3 state schools in Dundee.
You are correct. Perth Academy had its first comprehensive intake in 1971, which was the year I left.
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
It would be good if the Greens became as vocal on green issues as they are on trans rights. They diluted themselves when they decided they had to have opinions on everything, but so do we all.
This is what pisses me off about the Greens. They spend far too much time wibbling on about shite that has nothing to do with environmentalism or ecology.
I want to see a full fat eco-authoritarian party. Not another bunch of woke hand-wringers.
You mean like Labour, who spend far too much time wibbling on about shite that has nothing to do with labour and workers?
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.
I know next to nothing about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. However, they obviously have some potential actual use for people as a currency, IE, if you were trying to flee the taliban right now, bitcoin would be a very useful thing to have. It is probably a bubble that will burst at some point, but you can definetely make money whilst the market is rising, and a lot of people have. I would buy bitcoin in the same way as you might bet on a horse.
That sensible advice right up until the moment the market peaks (which none of us know) and then it becomes terrible advice.
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
I know very little, and don't pretend to know about what I don't know about.
Are you inadvertently on the wrong site?
I admire Northern Al’s self-awareness. If HYUFD had just a smidgen of self-awareness he would be a better debater.
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.
Excellent but unfortunately HYUFD has gone to do his ironing.
They don't teach you how to do that in grammar school, do they?
In the officer cadet force. Get the ironing perfected and you'll be allowed to invade Scotland in a little tank.
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
I have great respect for you in many areas.
But on education and what the data shows, I am sorry but you are completely wrong. I haven't replied to your posts on grammar schools etc. because I just don't know where to start and I'd have to write too much. But your analysis fails even at a very simple level, before one even starts to consider the progress/value-added measures that are more indicative of a school's success than raw examination results. It really should go without saying that if you attract the most able pupils, you should get the best results. That's all that selective education/grammar schools mean. And all the serious evidence shows that grammar school pupils would do just as well in a comprehensive - indeed, they may help to push results up for others as well.
As others have said, the single most impressive type of institution is state sixth form colleges, which are truly comprehensive. Have a look at the analysis on Oxbridge entrants here:
It's interesting. Obviously the top private schools get a lot into Oxbridge, as you'd expect of the privileged. But note that there are four state (comprehensive) sixth form colleges above any grammar schools, and many others in the top 100. Interestingly, most of the Tories with real expertise in education don't want a return to grammar schools/selective education.
I know very little, and don't pretend to know about what I don't know about. But I do know quite a lot about education and educational data.
I know plenty of private school pupils who went to sixth form colleges for A Levels, partly to make themselves look less privileged for Oxbridge entry in a few cases, the idea they are bog standard comps is ridiculous…
That is the point - they provide superior educational provision to the kids from the ‘bog standard’ (sic) comprehensives who have closed their 6th forms and send their students there. As was the case with my children’s school. Their current entry requirement is having grade 6 in three GCSE subjects.
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
It would be good if the Greens became as vocal on green issues as they are on trans rights. They diluted themselves when they decided they had to have opinions on everything, but so do we all.
This is what pisses me off about the Greens. They spend far too much time wibbling on about shite that has nothing to do with environmentalism or ecology.
I want to see a full fat eco-authoritarian party. Not another bunch of woke hand-wringers.
You mean like Labour, who spend far too much time wibbling on about shite that has nothing to do with labour and workers?
My despair at some of the shite that goes on in the Labour Party is well documented.
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.
Excellent but unfortunately HYUFD has gone to do his ironing.
They don't teach you how to do that in grammar school, do they?
In the officer cadet force. Get the ironing perfected and you'll be allowed to invade Scotland in a little tank.
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)
You and francis who have devoted their posting lives to proving how much better the British are than the French -and everyone else for that matter- will have to take early retirement
French cheating comme d'habitude. They define "complete" to include been infected and had one jab.
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.
Yes, speculation - so I steer well clear.
It's the 21st century version of Dutch tulips.
Yes, but you should really consider putting $25 into Monero.
Why?
1. The rise of Bitcoin was the consequence of the Dark Web, where people bought illegal items (stolen credit card numbers, drugs, databases of passwords). This created demand for the underlying currency (the more transactions there are, the more currency there needs to be in existence to facilitate it), and that price rise started the whole crypto wave.
2. It turns out, however, that Bitcoin is nowhere near as anonymous as people thought. Indeed, it turns out that it is all to easy to track people using Bitcoin for nefarious purposes. As a result, the Dark Web is moving towards Monero.
3. The purpose of Monero was to create a truly anonymous crypto currency.
4. The total value of Monero in existence is less than 0.4% of that of Bitcoin.
I see no reason why the total value of Bitcoin should be $200bn+, as there is next to no real economic activity associated with it. But I sure as shit can see demand for a truly anonymous cryptocurrency being big. I wouldn't be surprised if Monero (if they can pair it with Lightning) was valued at more than Bitcoin five years from now.
I think for anonymous payments the features you want are: 1) Properly anonymizing crypto 2) Stable currency, probably pegged to USD but at least not wildly volatile. 3) Scalability
Monero seems dubious for (1) and definitely fails at (2) and (3). At this point we basically know how to do all three of those - basically zcash, using a stablecoin like DAI or RAI, in a rollup like zksync. Monero does have some real-world traction but I think it's far enough off the required featureset that it'll lose the market to zksync-with-privacy.
Ryanair to stop all flights from Northern Ireland The airline is pulling out of both Belfast City and Belfast international airports, having already left Derry
The airline blamed government passenger duty and the absence of any Covid recovery incentives for the two airports.
It will stop its flights from Belfast international to six destinations – Alicante, Málaga, Kraków, Gdansk, Warsaw and Milan – by 30 October.
And it will withdraw eight services from City airport – to Alicante, Barcelona, Faro, Ibiza, Mallorca, Málaga, Milan and Valencia – on 12 September.
Mitt Romney 'We have given every indication that evacuation efforts cannot be concluded by August 31...Leaving vulnerable Afghans-many of whom risked their lives, and their families' lives, in service to our country - to face the wrath of the Taliban would be an utter disgrace and moral failure.' https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1430278164148891650?s=20
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.
I know next to nothing about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. However, they obviously have some potential actual use for people as a currency, IE, if you were trying to flee the taliban right now, bitcoin would be a very useful thing to have. It is probably a bubble that will burst at some point, but you can definetely make money whilst the market is rising, and a lot of people have. I would buy bitcoin in the same way as you might bet on a horse.
That sensible advice right up until the moment the market peaks (which none of us know) and then it becomes terrible advice.
Yes, what you really want in that situation is crypto pegged to USD. There are a few versions of these, some (USDT, USDC) involving trusted parties but others (DAI) not really. Unfortunately the most popular one is USDT (Tether) which involves a trusted party that's obviously fraudulent. But even USDT is probably much better than cash or banking if you live in Afghanistan right now, provided they don't turn off the internet.
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.
That's right for bitcoin, but it's not true of all crypto. Cryptocurrency refers to the way a digital asset is managed, it doesn't tell you what the asset represents.
If you think about - say - Ethereum - there's economic value created because people can register decentralized domain names, transfer USD-pegged coins and trade imaginary kittens. This is captured by transaction fees. Currently those fees and then some are spent on securing the chain, because it uses mining which is very expensive. However once mining stops the fees will all go to holders of ETH (in varying proportions depending whether they stake or not).
The total expected revenue across all ETH holders is the total of those transaction fees, minus the amount spent on running staking nodes. The latter is trivial. The former is currently about $3 million USD per day, or about a billion dollars if sustained over a year.
You can definitely argue that the current revenue is heavily dependent on a bubble in other assets and won't be sustained, but the economic value is definitely greater than zero, and the token holders can reasonably expect a share of that economic output.
PS. This isn't meant to advocate for buying Ethereum or any other cryptocurrency - to know whether to do that you need to work out how much the expected revenue is and how it compares to the price. But there is expected revenue.
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?
1) Don't arrange to meet at Moorgate station – it has more entrances than any other station 2) Big Ben is still covered in scaffolding so there's nothing to see 3) West Ham is top of the Premier League https://www.premierleague.com/tables
Coming back on topic.... I still cling to the idea that BJ will not lead the Cons into the next GE, not 100& sure it if is a choice of his to make.
My belief is you are right that Boris will not fight another election, but I do expect him to retire undefeated in any election since he won the Oxford Union presidency.
How long does immune memory last after #mRNA vax? Immunity vs. variants? What happens when you “boost” w/ vaccine?
Our work on durability & evolution of memory responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: biorxiv.org/content/10.110…. Antibodies, memory B/T cells, & more. Full thread below ….
Boosting is more complicated. Antibodies definitely go up, but no change in their decay rate + no long-term increase for memory B/T cells. The temporary ⬆️ in protection from antibodies may work on an individual level, but unclear if we can just boost our way out of this pandemic
Behr: Immovable facts of geography and economics are making Britain’s reliance on the rest of Europe impossible to ignore, and the Conservative party is slinking back to its happy place: self-righteous victimhood, with Brussels as the forever enemy.
There is a margin where economists can haggle over the cost of Brexit, but none dispute that raising barriers to trade reduces trade. There are signs of reality penetrating government. Plans to impose a UK-only quality mark have been postponed by a year. Keeping the European CE certification would be more practical for manufacturers, and rejecting it deters investment...
The Tory party will always demand pugnacity at a pitch that is incompatible with grown-up diplomacy. The method so far has been to capitulate to the EU on substance, covering the retreat with incendiary rhetoric. But that game becomes increasingly dangerous when the dispute is over the Northern Ireland protocol.
Happily for the Tories, there is no pressure from the opposition. Labour sees no route back to power treading the European side in arguments that Johnson can frame in terms of national dignity.
Neither side is yet ready to work with the banal reality that Brexit is an unspectacular failure: neither triumph, nor apocalypse. It is the damp smell in British politics that can be endured, but not quite ignored. The longer it is left untreated, the more expensive it will be to fix.
CNN: While President Joe Biden's withdrawal of troops by August 31 is inevitable, the speed at which the situation descended into chaos, and the White House's lack of contrition and flexibility has left allies spinning.
As America's allies -- most notably in Europe -- see it the United States is walking away, washing its hands of a crisis it played a large part in creating, and with scant regard for the problems that doing so creates elsewhere.
“To me, this shows is the end of one geopolitical era, which was about creating a liberal international order, and the beginning of a new one, which is about the competition between China and America," said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
[David Lidington adds:] “One of the consequences of the defeat in Afghanistan is the lack of confidence in the West, which can only be a good thing for China and Russia who can offer their support with zero regard for rule of law or human rights,"
The reputational cost to the West of what's happening in Afghanistan won't be fully known for some time. What is clear for now is that if America's allies want the option to serve their own interests globally, they need to accept that as things stand, they are inadequate. That means countries that have for so long relied on the stability of the US commitment to promoting Western values will need to rethink their foreign policy.
I would just like to comment on @rcs1000 and @Northern_Al posts of last night. Covered what I was trying to say in numerous posts much much more sustintly.
With regard to Simpsons paradox I think you are right @rcs1000 HYUFD misuse of stats seems to be an example of this. Great example given also. Made much clearer than my explanation.
I had never heard of this before, although in my defence I did little stats at uni, instead focusing on logic.
Dominic Raab is having his first interview since the fall of Kabul on @skynews now
Raab says "of course with the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't have gone away".
He said some of the claims about his holiday are false. "Stuff about me lounging around on the beach all day is nonsense. Paddle boarding is nonsense – the sea was closed there was a red flag"
Comments
Why?
1. The rise of Bitcoin was the consequence of the Dark Web, where people bought illegal items (stolen credit card numbers, drugs, databases of passwords). This created demand for the underlying currency (the more transactions there are, the more currency there needs to be in existence to facilitate it), and that price rise started the whole crypto wave.
2. It turns out, however, that Bitcoin is nowhere near as anonymous as people thought. Indeed, it turns out that it is all to easy to track people using Bitcoin for nefarious purposes. As a result, the Dark Web is moving towards Monero.
3. The purpose of Monero was to create a truly anonymous crypto currency.
4. The total value of Monero in existence is less than 0.4% of that of Bitcoin.
I see no reason why the total value of Bitcoin should be $200bn+, as there is next to no real economic activity associated with it. But I sure as shit can see demand for a truly anonymous cryptocurrency being big. I wouldn't be surprised if Monero (if they can pair it with Lightning) was valued at more than Bitcoin five years from now.
Look right, not left?
Don't talk on the tube.
"The Shard" is Abu Dhabi not London.
Walk - so much to see in London.
If you see Sadiq Khan run in the opposite direction.
I like Monero it makes logical sense.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/primary-youngsters-to-take-11-plus-style-1004643
e.g. This month’s average price for a CryptoPunk is $199,069, more than double last month’s average.
And what is a cyrptopunk you might ask, a low pixel digital avatars.
"Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - interview with psychiatrist, 3 January 1946 (Göring was determined to have among the highest IQs of the Nuremberg defendants)
Flexible block size.
Low transaction costs.
More rapid confirmations than either BTC or ETH.
But on education and what the data shows, I am sorry but you are completely wrong. I haven't replied to your posts on grammar schools etc. because I just don't know where to start and I'd have to write too much. But your analysis fails even at a very simple level, before one even starts to consider the progress/value-added measures that are more indicative of a school's success than raw examination results. It really should go without saying that if you attract the most able pupils, you should get the best results. That's all that selective education/grammar schools mean. And all the serious evidence shows that grammar school pupils would do just as well in a comprehensive - indeed, they may help to push results up for others as well.
As others have said, the single most impressive type of institution is state sixth form colleges, which are truly comprehensive. Have a look at the analysis on Oxbridge entrants here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-oxbridge-files
It's interesting. Obviously the top private schools get a lot into Oxbridge, as you'd expect of the privileged. But note that there are four state (comprehensive) sixth form colleges above any grammar schools, and many others in the top 100. Interestingly, most of the Tories with real expertise in education don't want a return to grammar schools/selective education.
I know very little, and don't pretend to know about what I don't know about. But I do know quite a lot about education and educational data.
"Because the website did not accept traditional payment methods, Cazes possessed more than $8.8 million in cryptocurrencies pooled across 1,605.05 bitcoins, 8,309.27 ether, 3,691.98 zcash and an unknown amount of monero..."
It has good meme value just on that quote.
/shill
In effect the US troops are not letting Afghans into the airport, even eligible ones, pretty much US citizens only. the result is charters specifically for those Afghans arrnged by various parties are going out far from full
The fate of Afghans who worked with the US and others and havent got out, you'd have to live in a fantasy world to think anything but the worst.
The question is, how many non Afghans who wanted out wont get out? There is every sign plenty are still in kabul and other parts of the country. If the US leaves citizens behind and the Taliban simply dont let them out on civil flights this is going to follow Biden around for some time.`
I want to see a full fat eco-authoritarian party. Not another bunch of woke hand-wringers.
How did Unionists maximise the effect of their second vote?
We are fortunate in our location - BWI, DCA and IAD are all only 40-45 minutes away in normal traffic conditions.
A difficult fact to process for some.
I accept we will remain a largely non selective system even if I prefer the grammar model, however we could at least move from the current system where you can only ballot to close grammars to one where you can hold ballots to open new grammars too if there is enough demand
Honestly, were I Home Secretary I'd sack Cressida Dick for that alone.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/24/democrats-near-deal-to-break-budget-impasse-506749
Kent has GCSE results at about the national average, selective Bucks and Trafford have overall GCSE results above the national average
On the Greens I think that they have influenced all the mainstream parties. I accept that they have some support, especially amongst the young who tend to focus on single issues. But Harvie remains the most annoying man in Scottish politics, and its a crowded field.
though can sell you a tent
By the way - which animals do you think the RAF should be evacuating before women & children from Kabul? You posted in favour of an ex-Marine advocating that a few days ago...(but I suspect, once again, you hadn't done research...)
Only a few parts of West Kent like Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks in the London commuter belt are what could be described as wealthy and posh, most of Kent is average income and average socioeconomically
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ImRyPymRAM
Given 52% voted Leave, if Boris keeps most of that he wins
Goodnight comrades.
As was the case with my children’s school.
Their current entry requirement is having grade 6 in three GCSE subjects.
Even as vaccinations pick up, many older Americans are deeply vulnerable.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1430298471567876096?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uizjqD3MMYQ
1) Properly anonymizing crypto
2) Stable currency, probably pegged to USD but at least not wildly volatile.
3) Scalability
Monero seems dubious for (1) and definitely fails at (2) and (3). At this point we basically know how to do all three of those - basically zcash, using a stablecoin like DAI or RAI, in a rollup like zksync. Monero does have some real-world traction but I think it's far enough off the required featureset that it'll lose the market to zksync-with-privacy.
The airline is pulling out of both Belfast City and Belfast international airports, having already left Derry
The airline blamed government passenger duty and the absence of any Covid recovery incentives for the two airports.
It will stop its flights from Belfast international to six destinations – Alicante, Málaga, Kraków, Gdansk, Warsaw and Milan – by 30 October.
And it will withdraw eight services from City airport – to Alicante, Barcelona, Faro, Ibiza, Mallorca, Málaga, Milan and Valencia – on 12 September.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/24/ryanair-to-stop-all-flights-from-northern-ireland
Grumpy Ulstermen missing out on their rays of sunshine.
https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1430278164148891650?s=20
If you think about - say - Ethereum - there's economic value created because people can register decentralized domain names, transfer USD-pegged coins and trade imaginary kittens. This is captured by transaction fees. Currently those fees and then some are spent on securing the chain, because it uses mining which is very expensive. However once mining stops the fees will all go to holders of ETH (in varying proportions depending whether they stake or not).
The total expected revenue across all ETH holders is the total of those transaction fees, minus the amount spent on running staking nodes. The latter is trivial. The former is currently about $3 million USD per day, or about a billion dollars if sustained over a year.
You can definitely argue that the current revenue is heavily dependent on a bubble in other assets and won't be sustained, but the economic value is definitely greater than zero, and the token holders can reasonably expect a share of that economic output.
PS. This isn't meant to advocate for buying Ethereum or any other cryptocurrency - to know whether to do that you need to work out how much the expected revenue is and how it compares to the price. But there is expected revenue.
2) Big Ben is still covered in scaffolding so there's nothing to see
3) West Ham is top of the Premier League
https://www.premierleague.com/tables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Canadian_federal_election#Campaign_period
Immunity vs. variants?
What happens when you “boost” w/ vaccine?
Our work on durability & evolution of memory responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: biorxiv.org/content/10.110…. Antibodies, memory B/T cells, & more. Full thread below ….
Boosting is more complicated. Antibodies definitely go up, but no change in their decay rate + no long-term increase for memory B/T cells. The temporary ⬆️ in protection from antibodies may work on an individual level, but unclear if we can just boost our way out of this pandemic
https://twitter.com/rishirajgoel/status/1430148915064676352?s=21
There is a margin where economists can haggle over the cost of Brexit, but none dispute that raising barriers to trade reduces trade. There are signs of reality penetrating government. Plans to impose a UK-only quality mark have been postponed by a year. Keeping the European CE certification would be more practical for manufacturers, and rejecting it deters investment...
The Tory party will always demand pugnacity at a pitch that is incompatible with grown-up diplomacy. The method so far has been to capitulate to the EU on substance, covering the retreat with incendiary rhetoric. But that game becomes increasingly dangerous when the dispute is over the Northern Ireland protocol.
Happily for the Tories, there is no pressure from the opposition. Labour sees no route back to power treading the European side in arguments that Johnson can frame in terms of national dignity.
Neither side is yet ready to work with the banal reality that Brexit is an unspectacular failure: neither triumph, nor apocalypse. It is the damp smell in British politics that can be endured, but not quite ignored. The longer it is left untreated, the more expensive it will be to fix.
As America's allies -- most notably in Europe -- see it the United States is walking away, washing its hands of a crisis it played a large part in creating, and with scant regard for the problems that doing so creates elsewhere.
“To me, this shows is the end of one geopolitical era, which was about creating a liberal international order, and the beginning of a new one, which is about the competition between China and America," said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
[David Lidington adds:] “One of the consequences of the defeat in Afghanistan is the lack of confidence in the West, which can only be a good thing for China and Russia who can offer their support with zero regard for rule of law or human rights,"
The reputational cost to the West of what's happening in Afghanistan won't be fully known for some time. What is clear for now is that if America's allies want the option to serve their own interests globally, they need to accept that as things stand, they are inadequate. That means countries that have for so long relied on the stability of the US commitment to promoting Western values will need to rethink their foreign policy.
With regard to Simpsons paradox I think you are right @rcs1000 HYUFD misuse of stats seems to be an example of this. Great example given also. Made much clearer than my explanation.
I had never heard of this before, although in my defence I did little stats at uni, instead focusing on logic.
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1430203143002918916
Raab says "of course with the benefit of hindsight I wouldn't have gone away".
He said some of the claims about his holiday are false.
"Stuff about me lounging around on the beach all day is nonsense. Paddle boarding is nonsense – the sea was closed there was a red flag"
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1430412320270864386