@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Normally you can tell the winner of an argument by the first to move to CAPITALISING random words for emphasis. However, in this scenario with both posters using this technique in CONSECUTIVE posts it is very hard to work out who is on top.
Oh, it's easy - GREYHOUNDS owned BY TORIES run faster THAN PEKINESE owned by LABOUR THEREFORE TORY IS SUPERIOR AND BORIS SAYS NO TO INDYREF is the level of argument. Does it sound any better or worse in upper case?
A lot of empty shelves in Tesco yesterday. When I asked a member of staff why, she blamed the shortage of drivers. Which is caused by Brexit.
Perth High Street is like something out of the apocalypse. Quite unnerving for someone familiar with the bustling, young, joyful affluence of Scandinavian cities. I’ve witnessed that High Street declining for three decades, but yesterday was a step-change. It must be soul-destroying for the few staff left manning those deserted retail spaces. Costa coffee looked like something out of a war zone.
“ Which is caused by Brexit.”
Simply untrue. There is a 100,00 shortfall of which 14,000 is claimed to be due to Brexit
It is simply untrue that it is simply untrue. Brexit means a lack of EU trucks coming acxross with stuff. That truck and that drivers would pick up and drop off in both directions between the channel and their final destination. Not being there means a UK truck and driver has to be found for the pick up and drop off work and we have a shortage of vehicles and drivers.
Its not ALL down to Brexit. But its not all NOT down to Brexit.
Yes, that’s what I said. Saying the driver shortage is being caused by Brexit is untrue
The ability to deal with the driver shortage is being hampered by the Brexit strategy the government has chosen to pursue. Brexit is an abstract concept. What is not abstract is how it has been implemented.
I am sorry you did not understand what I wrote!
I understood. You wrote "Saying the driver shortage is being caused by Brexit is untrue"
What you wrote is untrue, the Brexit absolutism I referred to in my first post this morning. You're as bonkers as the people who insist that crap summer weather is because of Brexit.
What I wrote was not untrue. The shortage of of drivers has been a problem across the world, for years. Yes Brexit has not helped, but it isn’t the cause of the shortfall.
Your insults fall on deaf ears, continue if you like but it doesn’t bother me either way.
This has been known about as an issue and flagged up for several years now. I have to ask what did the industry do to recruit and retain new drivers ? Brexit is a small part of it only and IR35 really is not solved at all according to contractor groups.
Rochdale is New Labour, being insulting is what they do.
You are, er, the one who is perhaps being insulting. RP is LD! (now SLD)
Yet still heavily invested in labour enough to comment numerous times this summer about purging Corbyn and his ilk from Labour.
Hmm. *puzzled* So PBTories are also heavily invested in Labour, on that same criterion?
Not seen any of these so-called PB Tories getting bogged down by intra Labour Party factionalism.
Still, never mind. How’s Indy going now the heavily Indy supporting Govt is now in charge in Holyrood ? When is the plan for the vote ?
They have said 'in the next 5 years' which conveniently kicks it past the next UK general election as they know Boris will refuse it
'Within 5 years' is not the same as 'after 5 years' or whatever interpretation you put on it.
The wording was also 'preferably by the end of 2023'.
Which even then is also conveniently past the likely next UK general election date of Spring 2023
It almost certainly won’t be spring 2023, given the boundary changes apply from that summer. October ‘23 IMO.
Not sure the boundary changes will benefit the Tories so much now as the pro Brexit and pro Boris North and Midlands would lose seats and the anti Brexit and relatively anti Boris London and South East gain them. Gavin Williamson and Ben Wallace would also need to find new seats.
However even if it was not until October 2023 and after the boundary changes that could still be before the SNP's preferred indyref2 time of by the end of December 2023
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Tesco delivery today… the only item not available was bottled water
After a few weeks of bottled water availability being highly patchy, no problems at all for bottled water these last two or three weeks. In fact, the only thing not available was big boxes of strawberries, for which small boxes of strawberries were substituted.
More importantly are they still tasty? Think its about now they move from being the best summer berry out there to decidedly underwhelming?
almost blackberry picking time. loads round here and hardly anyone else seems to bother with them.
Kohli.....gone...shove that where the sun doesn't shine....
Anderson: 6 overs, 3 for 6.....
I think we could spend some years in the (test) cricketing wilderness once Anderson retires. I can't see anybody who's anywhere near a replacement. And it's not as if our batting is up to much.
I do wonder about how much of what is left of Brexit is basically about pissing off remainers more than anything to do with the UK-EU relations?
Feels like just over half to me.
* Just for balance there are a small band of remainers who want leavers to suffer, but unlike Brexiteer joy of pissing off remainers, that is not mainstream (perhaps it is within parts of social media like twatter).
Brexit allows us to do other deals. The big one will be CPTPP. There is a strain of thinking that post-Afghanistan, Biden might be more amenable to joining it...
If that happens, the EU is small fry in comparison. Either way, we aren't going back to the EU.
Of course we aren't going back to the EU, and I wouldn't recommend we do us unless there was a settled two thirds majority in favour anyway, there is no point doing a hokey kokey.
I was questioning the motivations behind Brexit being dominant politically even after we have Brexit-ed. In order I would say:
Piss off the remainers Piss off the French Higher wages for some New trade deals
Brexiters don't need to piss off the Remainers - Remainers fire up that engine all on their own.
And the only way we would go back in to the EU is if we gave up any ability for Brexit 2. We would be locked in and there would be no Article 50 option. That would be the price for re-admission. That would have to be the basis of our informed consent. I'm not sure what level of majority that requires. Even less sure it could be attained.
You are trying to argue with yourself, no-one is suggesting rejoin! Certainly not me.
Are you really suggesting there isn't a sizeable body of opinion on here that wouldn't rejoin the EU tomorrow if it was on offer?
Right.....
I would go back in time and not leave. That is very different to wanting to rejoin now having left. That is a non-starter. What we need to do is stop lying to ourselves that there either are no problems or that our problems are the fault of Covid / IR35 / crap CEOs / crap jobs / my doge ate it and definitely not Brexit.
Especially with all the fun of 1st October and 1st January to come. Avoiding those shitshows would benefit everyone.
Ooh, if we can do that, can I turn back time to the 70s and not join?
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I thought neither apples nor pears were soft fruit but that's a whole new fight.
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I'm stopping. Feel free to take over.
Wise. It's not worth it. HYUFD's argument is akin to the devastating insight that if you select the fastest runners they are more likely to win races than if you enter a random selection of runners not based on previous running speeds. Which of course is true, but tells you nothing beyond the obvious. It's a nonsense.
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Normally you can tell the winner of an argument by the first to move to CAPITALISING random words for emphasis. However, in this scenario with both posters using this technique in CONSECUTIVE posts it is very hard to work out who is on top.
I think HYUFD and myself have been very restrained don't you. Only one each and both were deserving of capitalisation. Do we get an award for being civilised?
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Normally you can tell the winner of an argument by the first to move to CAPITALISING random words for emphasis. However, in this scenario with both posters using this technique in CONSECUTIVE posts it is very hard to work out who is on top.
I think HYUFD and myself have been very restrained don't you. Only one each and both were deserving of capitalisation. Do we get an award for being civilised?
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
So thanks for confirming you still have not a single fact to refute my point that selective local authority areas have above average rates of Oxbridge admittance .
I of course only provided those facts to you in the first place because you said they were the only logical facts on this argument
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Normally you can tell the winner of an argument by the first to move to CAPITALISING random words for emphasis. However, in this scenario with both posters using this technique in CONSECUTIVE posts it is very hard to work out who is on top.
I think HYUFD and myself have been very restrained don't you. Only one each and both were deserving of capitalisation. Do we get an award for being civilised?
The absolute state of Brexiteer Rochdale Pioneers complaining about Brexit.
lol - As Brexit was a vote to leave the European Union and not a vote on what we do afterwards, how is this incompatible?
Again, right here right now I want to fix Brexit so that it works. We left and we aren't going back, so we need to make what we do afterwards not be as demented as it already is (and it gets a lot worse on 01/10/21 and 01/01/22).
"two women with an entire trolley full of bottled and nothing else."
Surely a piss-take? Most houses have two things called taps. When you turn on the one labelled 'cold' you receive a plentiful supply of the precious material. We are talking of water, aren't we?
I'm not taking the piss (if that's what you meant). I should have taken a photo and asked them about it...
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Normally you can tell the winner of an argument by the first to move to CAPITALISING random words for emphasis. However, in this scenario with both posters using this technique in CONSECUTIVE posts it is very hard to work out who is on top.
I think HYUFD and myself have been very restrained don't you. Only one each and both were deserving of capitalisation. Do we get an award for being civilised?
"There’s been far too much union time being spent on Keir Starmer this Keir Starmer that. I am not interested in the internal wranglings of Labour. Labour aren’t even in power. I want to focus on jobs, pay and conditions"
"There’s been far too much union time being spent on Keir Starmer this Keir Starmer that. I am not interested in the internal wranglings of Labour. Labour aren’t even in power. I want to focus on jobs, pay and conditions"
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I'm stopping. Feel free to take over.
No, thanks. Clearly kindly meant, but I have a Wine Tasting Group which I must attend.
The French evacuation operation from Kabul airport will “very [probably]” end on Thursday, days before the August 31 date set for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, European Affairs Minister Clément Beaune told broadcaster CNews on Wednesday.....
Britain’s Foreign Minister Dominic Raab shared a different timeline as he said the deadline for Afghanistan evacuations remained August 31 during a Sky News interview.
But the August 31 deadline means that the evacuation of Afghan refugees has to finish before then, U.K. defense officials told the Guardian. U.S. forces need two to three days to close down their operations in Kabul, and Britain wants its military out at least 24 hours before that, meaning U.K. troops are likely to leave for the last time on Friday or Saturday. The British defense officials added that the British evacuation will end within “24 to 36 hours.”
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
I have just returned from Asda and the shelves are full of chicken
Maybe people need to home cook
So what you're saying is that Greggs are wrong? As massive chicken processors such as 2 Sisters have detailed why they are having major problems perhaps you are also saying that business leaders like Ranjit Boparan are also wrong.
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I'm stopping. Feel free to take over.
No, thanks. Clearly kindly meant, but I have a Wine Tasting Group which I must attend.
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Normally you can tell the winner of an argument by the first to move to CAPITALISING random words for emphasis. However, in this scenario with both posters using this technique in CONSECUTIVE posts it is very hard to work out who is on top.
I think HYUFD and myself have been very restrained don't you. Only one each and both were deserving of capitalisation. Do we get an award for being civilised?
Oh and I won!
No you didn't, I won as per my last post
Do you want an argument about that then. Only kidding.
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
I do wonder about how much of what is left of Brexit is basically about pissing off remainers more than anything to do with the UK-EU relations?
Feels like just over half to me.
* Just for balance there are a small band of remainers who want leavers to suffer, but unlike Brexiteer joy of pissing off remainers, that is not mainstream (perhaps it is within parts of social media like twatter).
My ex car-share, a passionate remainer, wanted anyone who voted leave to suffer - become poorer, lose their job etc. Quite distasteful really. Despite us both voting remain, we had some intense discussions as I was in favour of honouring the vote, and he wanted a new go, as the country was obviously wrong...
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I'm stopping. Feel free to take over.
Wise. It's not worth it. HYUFD's argument is akin to the devastating insight that if you select the fastest runners they are more likely to win races than if you enter a random selection of runners not based on previous running speeds. Which of course is true, but tells you nothing beyond the obvious. It's a nonsense.
Excellent analogy. Why is everyone else better at this than me?
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
Honestly its spreading like wildfire.....the lies and conspiracy theories that are being spread about vaccines by those anti-vaxxing alt right Trump supporting redneck hillbillies at.....er......the BBC and SAGE!!
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I'm stopping. Feel free to take over.
Wise. It's not worth it. HYUFD's argument is akin to the devastating insight that if you select the fastest runners they are more likely to win races than if you enter a random selection of runners not based on previous running speeds. Which of course is true, but tells you nothing beyond the obvious. It's a nonsense.
Excellent analogy. Why is everyone else better at this than me?
Except it isn't.
As I posted earlier 'In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
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)
They threatened to refuse access to routine medical treatment to people who did not have it, iirc.
Amongst other things, such as counting them on the French system.
The answer is in that word "complete". It means different things in each country. If you've been previously infected, France counts a single vaccination as "complete". The UK does not. Everyone is offered two doses. https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1430263001072996354
This will definitely not come back around and bite France in the derrière.
More generally, I'm uncomfortable. The "keeping up with the Joneses" rhetoric keeps ratcheting up the pressure on 1st world politicians to match at least the doses, plus the teenage doses, plus the booster doses that next-door is being offered; and preferably to exceed them
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
I have just returned from Asda and the shelves are full of chicken
Maybe people need to home cook
So what you're saying is that Greggs are wrong? As massive chicken processors such as 2 Sisters have detailed why they are having major problems perhaps you are also saying that business leaders like Ranjit Boparan are also wrong.
No I do not doubt Greggs, just the stock in the supermarket is excellent and either home cook or buy an alternative until the supply is resolved
I really do not know what the Country would do if they were faced with ration books which I well remember in the 1950s plus 2 years national service
Yup. He is one of the biggest hypocrites on the site.
“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’
Yup. He is one of the biggest hypocrites on the site.
Has he disowned his views, or is he just hoping people don't remember? I have to be honest and say I don't really know what his views on Brexit are, perhaps they can enlighten us?
I have always thought Rochdale was honest and upfront before.
Polling from Berlin suggests the Union are yet to turn the ship around. And how can they when every day they have to see new high COVID cases and consider new measures (inc. the recently introduced 3G vaccine passport).
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I'm stopping. Feel free to take over.
Wise. It's not worth it. HYUFD's argument is akin to the devastating insight that if you select the fastest runners they are more likely to win races than if you enter a random selection of runners not based on previous running speeds. Which of course is true, but tells you nothing beyond the obvious. It's a nonsense.
Excellent analogy. Why is everyone else better at this than me?
Except it isn't.
As I posted earlier 'In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
I'm not sure why I'm doing this.... You're still wrong. Take East Sussex. Yes, low numbers of state school applicants and entrants to Oxbridge. But guess what? Many of the academic kids in East Sussex travel to go to BHASVIC (Brighton & Hove Sixth Form College - state), which has an exceptionally high rate of Oxbridge applicants and successes. The same happens everywhere - A-level kids travel across borders. Most of all in London - kids who live in the inner city travel out to the suburbs to join the middle classes to do their A levels.
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I'm stopping. Feel free to take over.
Wise. It's not worth it. HYUFD's argument is akin to the devastating insight that if you select the fastest runners they are more likely to win races than if you enter a random selection of runners not based on previous running speeds. Which of course is true, but tells you nothing beyond the obvious. It's a nonsense.
Excellent analogy. Why is everyone else better at this than me?
Except it isn't.
As I posted earlier 'In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
I'm not sure why I'm doing this.... You're still wrong. Take East Sussex. Yes, low numbers of state school applicants and entrants to Oxbridge. But guess what? Many of the academic kids in East Sussex travel to go to BHASVIC (Brighton & Hove Sixth Form College - state), which has an exceptionally high rate of Oxbridge applicants and successes. The same happens everywhere - A-level kids travel across borders.
'I'm not sure why I am doing this....' - You mad fool.
"There’s been far too much union time being spent on Keir Starmer this Keir Starmer that. I am not interested in the internal wranglings of Labour. Labour aren’t even in power. I want to focus on jobs, pay and conditions"
I do wonder about how much of what is left of Brexit is basically about pissing off remainers more than anything to do with the UK-EU relations?
Feels like just over half to me.
* Just for balance there are a small band of remainers who want leavers to suffer, but unlike Brexiteer joy of pissing off remainers, that is not mainstream (perhaps it is within parts of social media like twatter).
Brexit allows us to do other deals. The big one will be CPTPP. There is a strain of thinking that post-Afghanistan, Biden might be more amenable to joining it...
If that happens, the EU is small fry in comparison. Either way, we aren't going back to the EU.
Of course we aren't going back to the EU, and I wouldn't recommend we do us unless there was a settled two thirds majority in favour anyway, there is no point doing a hokey kokey.
I was questioning the motivations behind Brexit being dominant politically even after we have Brexit-ed. In order I would say:
Piss off the remainers Piss off the French Higher wages for some New trade deals
Brexiters don't need to piss off the Remainers - Remainers fire up that engine all on their own.
And the only way we would go back in to the EU is if we gave up any ability for Brexit 2. We would be locked in and there would be no Article 50 option. That would be the price for re-admission. That would have to be the basis of our informed consent. I'm not sure what level of majority that requires. Even less sure it could be attained.
You are trying to argue with yourself, no-one is suggesting rejoin! Certainly not me.
Are you really suggesting there isn't a sizeable body of opinion on here that wouldn't rejoin the EU tomorrow if it was on offer?
Right.....
I would go back in time and not leave. That is very different to wanting to rejoin now having left. That is a non-starter. What we need to do is stop lying to ourselves that there either are no problems or that our problems are the fault of Covid / IR35 / crap CEOs / crap jobs / my doge ate it and definitely not Brexit.
Especially with all the fun of 1st October and 1st January to come. Avoiding those shitshows would benefit everyone.
I think most of the rational posters on here accept that there are some issues that arise from Brexit and the deal(s) we struck to achieve that. But most rational posters also remember the scare stories ahead of the vote and later and quite rightly wonder if some of the issues are not talked up a little by remainers (and for sure, played down by brexiteers).
@HYUFD Don't want to fall out with you HYUFD because I like you a lot and without getting back into the Comprehensive/Grammar argument I would just like to know whether you understood @rcs1000 hypothetical example he gave last night to demonstrate the fallacy of the stats you were using?
If so do you think there was a flaw in Roberts maths and if so where?
Anyone can produce a hypothetical example to prove their point, I just gave actual facts of the dominance by the privately educated of the top jobs now.
I prefer to deal in actual facts not hypothetical ones
No they can't. What Robert showed was 100% rigorous maths.
Oh my god you don't get it do you? The hypothetical example was to show that you were using a stat incorrectly by showing (in an example) that the stat you were using, although accurate didn't show what you thought it showed.
He showed in an example that mathematically a school in one area could appear to be significantly more successful than schools in another area, whereas the outcome was actually better for the children in the other area.
I'll have a go:
2 identical areas with identical kids. In one there are 4 comprehensives, in the other a Grammar and 3 Secondaries.
The results are each Comp gets 2 people to Oxbridge, the Grammar 4 people and the Secondaries 0.
So applying your stats to these results the Grammar school is twice as good as the Comps. Agree?
But in fact the other area actually got twice as many kids to Oxbridge than the Grammar school area.
You see your method gives the wrong result even though the stat is correct.
Now you may be right and I might be wrong and Grammar schools might be better, but your stat definitely doesn't show that so you shouldn't be using it.
So an entirely made up scenario produced to get the outcome you want ie comprehensive areas get more pupils into Oxbridge than selective areas overall.
Yet not a single actual fact to back it up.
In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
This is not an argument about who is right and wrong about Grammar and Comprehensive. Would it help if I said I was wrong and you are right? Happy to do that if you wish in utter desperation.
Now lets start again on the stats you have been using. You don't seem to understand that you are using a stat incorrectly to try and prove a point. Hence you are not proving the point.
Because you didn't understand that, Robert and I came up with an examples to show you what you are doing wrong, by showing an example where your use of stats clearly gives the wrong result.
So in the example I gave using your method it showed the Grammar school (if it helps use another word like Green marble) was twice as good as the Comprehensives (Red marbles) next door. In fact the stat you were using was being used inappropriately because in fact the area next door were actually twice as good.
The point here is your methodology to produce what you call a 'fact' is mathematically wrong. So your 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all.
You seem to struggle with what a fact is, what a stat is and what logic is. Stats taken out of context or interpreted incorrectly are not facts at all. In fact in the case you gave they started out as facts and your interpretation of them made them no longer facts. Logic applied to a fact is a fact.
It is a fact that your interpretation of the stats is NOT a fact as demonstrated by both the logical argument and by deduction by providing an example that fails.
The irony is you state I am not providing any Facts whereas I am the only one of the two of us who actually is.
You have just posted umpteen posts full of hypotheticals but without a single actual FACT to support your argument.
I have just posted facts which show quite clearly that selective areas ie including grammars and non selective high schools, have above average rates of Oxbridge acceptance. So even on your chosen methodology and context and even on your usual tedious 'I am so brilliant at logic and maths unlike you' rant that effectively means that I was right and you were wrong as you now seem to have all but conceded.
Unbelievable. You really don't know what a fact is do you? Your facts stopped being facts once you accidentally misused them. It is basic maths to prove something is inaccurate by applying it to a scenario and witnessing it fail. It was not a hypothetical but a demonstration that your fact was in fact not a fact because it failed in that example.
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
Is this a private fight? I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside. Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I'm stopping. Feel free to take over.
Wise. It's not worth it. HYUFD's argument is akin to the devastating insight that if you select the fastest runners they are more likely to win races than if you enter a random selection of runners not based on previous running speeds. Which of course is true, but tells you nothing beyond the obvious. It's a nonsense.
Excellent analogy. Why is everyone else better at this than me?
Except it isn't.
As I posted earlier 'In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
I'm not sure why I'm doing this.... You're still wrong. Take East Sussex. Yes, low numbers of state school applicants and entrants to Oxbridge. But guess what? Many of the academic kids in East Sussex travel to go to BHASVIC (Brighton & Hove Sixth Form College - state), which has an exceptionally high rate of Oxbridge applicants and successes. The same happens everywhere - A-level kids travel across borders.
A few may do does not change the fact that fully comprehensive East Sussex overall has one of the worst Oxbridge admittance rates in the country despite similar demographics to Kent which has selective schools and significantly better Oxbridge admittance than East Sussex. Brighton is wealthier and more middle class overall than both.
In London too suburban areas with grammar schools far outperform comprehensive inner London on Oxbridge admittance rates even despite the fact the latter is wealthier overall than the former
Some good things have come out of our GP with online consults, etc, and for many patients thats a good thing. But some will always want/need to see a doctor in person, and our surgery is harder to get into than fort Knox. I understand that they are higher risk, but it is surely making it harder for those who need access to get access.
Honestly if the unions can get away from commenting on Labour, Labour would do a lot better
Graham is definitely not Team Starmer's preferred candidate because she isn't an avowed centrist. But as you say if she largely removes Unite from the internal politics of the Labour Party and instead focuses on the interests of Unite members, they will be delighted.
We absolutely need trade unions. But the sooner Labour removes them
Comments
However even if it was not until October 2023 and after the boundary changes that could still be before the SNP's preferred indyref2 time of by the end of December 2023
No l am not particularly brilliant. There are lots on here who can run circles around me.
I haven't conceded I was just trying to get into a more generic scenario so you are not blinded by your sincerely and perfectly valid held beliefs.
There is a world of difference between an opinion and a fact.
my delivery is lacking, cos brexit* sent them packing
(* or maybe something else)
I do wonder about the rationale of comparing academic results in Berkshire with those of Merseyside.
Apples and pears come to mind, Both soft fruit, but there's a world of difference.
I of course only provided those facts to you in the first place because you said they were the only logical facts on this argument
🚨 Exclusive 🚨
🍽 Greggs is the latest high-profile food outlet to be affected by supply chain disruption, leading to shortages of chicken-based products like its popular chicken bake
🧵/1
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/greggs-chicken-bake-oval-bite-shortage-as-supply-chain-hgv-driver-crisis
Maybe people need to home cook
Again, right here right now I want to fix Brexit so that it works. We left and we aren't going back, so we need to make what we do afterwards not be as demented as it already is (and it gets a lot worse on 01/10/21 and 01/01/22).
This might be needed (even more) if things get worse:
https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/westminster-should-follow-scotlands-lead-and-introduce-news-laws-to-prevent-violence-against-shop-workers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58326657?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=612619523fa7c437236baa6b&Myocarditis risk after second jabs 'influencing decision making'&2021-08-25T10:35:30.119Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:ebb1d5ae-4df8-4fc1-ba17-572fafd06d49&pinned_post_asset_id=612619523fa7c437236baa6b&pinned_post_type=share
"There’s been far too much union time being spent on Keir Starmer this Keir Starmer that. I am not interested in the internal wranglings of Labour. Labour aren’t even in power. I want to focus on jobs, pay and conditions"
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1430489273220964354?s=20
Anti-vaxxer.....!!!
So duty calls!
The French evacuation operation from Kabul airport will “very [probably]” end on Thursday, days before the August 31 date set for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, European Affairs Minister Clément Beaune told broadcaster CNews on Wednesday.....
Britain’s Foreign Minister Dominic Raab shared a different timeline as he said the deadline for Afghanistan evacuations remained August 31 during a Sky News interview.
But the August 31 deadline means that the evacuation of Afghan refugees has to finish before then, U.K. defense officials told the Guardian. U.S. forces need two to three days to close down their operations in Kabul, and Britain wants its military out at least 24 hours before that, meaning U.K. troops are likely to leave for the last time on Friday or Saturday. The British defense officials added that the British evacuation will end within “24 to 36 hours.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/afghanistan-evacuation-uk-france-august-withdrawal-us-forces/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1629889537
I know. Its all my fault...
I put extra chicken into the char sui pork noodles in the work canteen.
#BREXIT
As I posted earlier 'In actual fact the lowest acceptance rate into Oxbridge by LA area in England is in areas like comprehensive East Sussex, Hull and Merseyside all with none or less than 0.5%.
Selective Kent by contrast has 1.5-3% acceptance rate into Oxbridge and selective Bucks has a well above average 3-4% Oxbridge acceptance rate.
In London too the highest areas by Oxbridge admission are in the suburbs where there are still a few grammars, not the inner city
https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018.pdf (p32)'
More generally, I'm uncomfortable.
The "keeping up with the Joneses" rhetoric keeps ratcheting up the pressure on 1st world politicians to match at least the doses, plus the teenage doses, plus the booster doses that next-door is being offered; and preferably to exceed them
QUITE KLAXON
I really do not know what the Country would do if they were faced with ration books which I well remember in the 1950s plus 2 years national service
Fabulous thread on other times when the sea was closed #Raab https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1430483128594874374
“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’
I have always thought Rochdale was honest and upfront before.
In London too suburban areas with grammar schools far outperform comprehensive inner London on Oxbridge admittance rates even despite the fact the latter is wealthier overall than the former
It seems to me that GP surgeries are the only places still locked down. Is that everyone else’s experience?
We absolutely need trade unions. But the sooner Labour removes them Indeed. Having not voted for this form of shitshow I am a hypocrite in detailing it. How insightful of you to notice.