Undefined discussion subject.
Options
Comments
-
I can see a huge problem coming for the universities. We get the results the Sunday before the a levels come out and spend this time sorting ins, outs and near misses. The better unis will be close full already based on the known results. Should these change in the way the Scottish ones have many courses will overshoot. Not clear what that will mean (accommodation? Room sizes?) I see lots of trouble ahead...kle4 said:
Be reasonable, they need to actually announce results before they can u-turn on them.malcolmg said:
No sign of any u-turn for England. Only Scotland so far.Carnyx said:
But if the U turn has happened there seems to be less need for appeals anyway? Or am I missing something?ydoethur said:
This is going to be a motorway pileup that undermined a mainline bridge, causing four trains to plummet to destruction on the wreckage, before a Boeing 747 crashed on the confusion, topped off by a series of nuclear tipped tomahawk missiles.tlg86 said:
Was that all UK universities or just Scottish ones?eek said:
You missed the bit earlier today where Universities have been told to keep places open for inevitable appeals.tlg86 said:
For university admissions? They already do different exams, so it might just come down to the universities themselves applying a model of their own.eek said:
Yep - and it's going to cause problems if England doesn't do the same...BannedinnParis said:
PRIZES FOR ALLCarlottaVance said:Swinney withdraws all downgraded awards. All to be based on teacher assessments. Quite the climb down. Also increased grades left in place.
(dear lord that's a catastrophic call ... )
Either way, it is going to be carnage.
It is going to be awful beyond belief.1 -
In other words, "in the ones who (generally) don't die." It's good news, but we're far from the finishing line.....Nigelb said:Healthy Adults Aged 18-59 years
0 -
Thrilling finish brewing at Bristol.
Warwickshire have lost nine wickets in three hours.
They have one hour to bat for a draw if the light holds.
Ryan Higgins has bowled like a man possessed. These are perfect conditions for batting and he has an extraordinary 6-26.
Not as though Warwickshire are a bad batting side either.0 -
Which is why true humanitarians (rather than virtue-signalling celebrities) should have all got behind Cameron's system.contrarian said:
So its a sort of SAS boot camp selection. If you can survive long enough in the poor conditions we offer you to force us to make a decision, you're in.rcs1000 said:
France receives about ten times as many asylum applications as we do per year, c/300,000.contrarian said:
Its been claimed that France and Germany accept many more seekers than the UK though, so these are the ones presumably who are not successful in their applications.....???rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
The French government strategy for them is to encourage as many as possible to leave the country before the French government has to make a decision. So, you put them in camps in shitty parts of the country with no jobs, and which are near other countries where they will hopefully self deport to.
Of the 300,000, perhaps 50-75,000 will attempt to leave France for Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and the UK. And perhaps 10% of them (c. 6,000/year) try to come to the UK - which is seen as (a) an better place to be an immigrant (generally), and (b) is a place where they are going to find it easier, as they probably speak English already.
Edit: my numbers are out of date. At the peak of the European migration crisis, France was up to close to 300,000 asylum seekers a year, but it has since fallen to 125,000. Scale my numbers accordingly.1 -
The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=200 -
0
-
Indeed.CarlottaVance said:
In other words, "in the ones who (generally) don't die." It's good news, but we're far from the finishing line.....Nigelb said:Healthy Adults Aged 18-59 years
To be fair to them, the Chinese are quite clear about the limitations of the study; as opposed to the Russians, who aren't clear about anything.
And the improvement in seroconversion is very encouraging.0 -
-
Merkel is a CDU politician who likes to retain office and she thinks the best way of doing this is to give the wheel that squeaks the grease.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
We complain about the quality of political leadership in the USA but to be honest it's not much better in Germany. The CDU can't find anyone to replace her.1 -
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.0 -
I am sure this was released few days agoCorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Time he was retired, he blocked me for daring to criticise his waffling and encourage him to get on with what he was elected for. They are really thin skinned when you question them on not doing their day jobDavidL said:
I think he is still undefeated (although listening to Mike Russell wittering this afternoon was just painful).Carnyx said:
Whohe? Googled ... oh, you mean Patrick Harvie.DavidL said:
Patrick Harvey was the most annoying man in Scottish politics when Salmond was still active. A truly remarkable achievement.Theuniondivvie said:Now the Scottish LDs have passed into irrelevant obscurity, the Scottish Greens appear to have adopted the mantle of ill-founded self importance.
https://twitter.com/scotgp/status/1293191963525578752?s=20
Why "was"? Who's his successor? Ross Greer?1 -
A TBC candidate would probably get more votes for the Liberal Democrats than any real one.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1293211554167566339
Absolutely pathetic.0 -
There has been an extensive "Wilkommensplan", with all asylum immigrants being offerered German language courses, and those under 20 (I think) have been attending school in "welcome classes". These are now tailing off, with the younger pupils being integrated into the normal school classes. The welcome classes covered the main subjects but were without a fixed sylabus so the teacher could adapt to the abilities of the class. Remember many had had a reasonable schooling in Syria.kinabalu said:
It would. Causing much crime, overcrowding, social unease and tension? Or integrating pretty well and in the early stages of a sustained, long term contribution to an economy under pressure to support an ageing indigenous population?contrarian said:
It would be genuinely interesting to know how many of Merkel's million are still in Germany, where they are housed, and how they are doing.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
The appenticeship system is strong in Germany and adults assylum immigrants were, where possible, put on apprenticeship schemes which fitted with their skills from Syria.
I'm not claiming everything is fine. There are is certainly lots of tension still from those who disagreed with the policy, and when a group of assylum immigrants break the law this is big news in the media especially in the tabloids. But the immigrant wave of 2015 is no longer visibly queuing at the immigration office, or on the streets of Berlin or in temporary camps. If I had to summarise it in one sentence, i would say: the authorities have coped well with what could have turned into a really big problem.
0 -
Greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his friends for his life.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
As Jeremy Thorpe memorably said in 1962 and even more memorably proved in 1979.0 -
This will increase the landslide victory next May. Open to admitting errors and fixing them swiftly , great government.ydoethur said:
If they go ahead. There’s no certainty this pandemic will be over or at least under control in time for that.CarlottaVance said:
that has cut through. There have been a cavalcade of major blunders before this - but so far they have defied gravity.JohnO said:Interesting to see the impact on the next round of Scottish polling. This seems to be the first major Sturgeon/SNP blunder for some time.
Perhaps buying off 2020's cohort will save their skin. After all the (likely) collapse in grades in 2021 will be after the Holyrood election.0 -
Good to see the Aberdeen P&J and (Dundee) Courier holding up reasonably well (and together selling five times as many copies as the Nat Onal, which sells less than the Leicester Mercury):
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/abc-figures-show-most-regional-dailies-lost-10-20-of-circulation-in-lockdown/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-08-11&utm_source=PG Daily 2020 NEW DESIGN0 -
Great writing from Rafael Behr, as often:
When Tory chancellors tax, borrow and spend, voters know it is strictly business, while suspecting Labour of doing it for pleasure. The diligent lawyer style that Johnson seems to think is so unattractive in Starmer might help deal with that vulnerability. In the language of crude focus-group tests, the swing voter might rather have a pint with the prime minister, but if they had lent one of the two leaders a tenner there can’t be much doubt as to who they would sooner trust to pay it back.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/11/keir-starmer-tories-labour-leader-opposition0 -
I’m not sure that deciding to honour grades you’ve spent a week describing as ‘not credible’ and ‘undermining confidence in the exam system’ by being forced to admit that your alternative was even more useless and had no credibility at all counts as ‘fixing an error.’malcolmg said:
This will increase the landslide victory next May. Open to admitting errors and fixing them swiftly , great government.ydoethur said:
If they go ahead. There’s no certainty this pandemic will be over or at least under control in time for that.CarlottaVance said:
that has cut through. There have been a cavalcade of major blunders before this - but so far they have defied gravity.JohnO said:Interesting to see the impact on the next round of Scottish polling. This seems to be the first major Sturgeon/SNP blunder for some time.
Perhaps buying off 2020's cohort will save their skin. After all the (likely) collapse in grades in 2021 will be after the Holyrood election.2 -
Massie is a unionist lickspittle, he could not be objective if it hit him on the face. Everything SNP or independence is bad to him, the fanny likes cricket, what can I say.Carnyx said:
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.0 -
Well, at least he has one redeeming feature.malcolmg said:
Massie is a unionist lickspittle, he could not be objective if it hit him on the face. Everything SNP or independence is bad to him, the fanny likes cricket, what can I say.Carnyx said:
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.1 -
Neverthless, at its most fundamental level will it please more people than it upsets? That's all the SNP need be concerned about after all.ydoethur said:
I’m not sure that deciding to honour grades you’ve spent a week describing as ‘not credible’ and ‘undermining confidence in the exam system’ by being forced to admit that your alternative was even more useless and had no credibility at all counts as ‘fixing an error.’malcolmg said:
This will increase the landslide victory next May. Open to admitting errors and fixing them swiftly , great government.ydoethur said:
If they go ahead. There’s no certainty this pandemic will be over or at least under control in time for that.CarlottaVance said:
that has cut through. There have been a cavalcade of major blunders before this - but so far they have defied gravity.JohnO said:Interesting to see the impact on the next round of Scottish polling. This seems to be the first major Sturgeon/SNP blunder for some time.
Perhaps buying off 2020's cohort will save their skin. After all the (likely) collapse in grades in 2021 will be after the Holyrood election.0 -
I note you do not compare it to the national unionist organs , they are circling the drainCarlottaVance said:Good to see the Aberdeen P&J and (Dundee) Courier holding up reasonably well (and together selling five times as many copies as the Nat Onal, which sells less than the Leicester Mercury):
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/abc-figures-show-most-regional-dailies-lost-10-20-of-circulation-in-lockdown/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-08-11&utm_source=PG Daily 2020 NEW DESIGN0 -
ydoethur said:
Well, at least he has one redeeming feature.malcolmg said:
Massie is a unionist lickspittle, he could not be objective if it hit him on the face. Everything SNP or independence is bad to him, the fanny likes cricket, what can I say.Carnyx said:
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.
0 -
I’m not liking this.
Hannon Dalby is playing far too well. He’s going to block out for a draw.0 -
Surely even Boris's most devoted admirers wouldn't claim thriftiness with taxpayers' money as a defining feature. Sir Keir could certainly seize that mantle if he's shrewd.Richard_Nabavi said:Great writing from Rafael Behr, as often:
When Tory chancellors tax, borrow and spend, voters know it is strictly business, while suspecting Labour of doing it for pleasure. The diligent lawyer style that Johnson seems to think is so unattractive in Starmer might help deal with that vulnerability. In the language of crude focus-group tests, the swing voter might rather have a pint with the prime minister, but if they had lent one of the two leaders a tenner there can’t be much doubt as to who they would sooner trust to pay it back.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/11/keir-starmer-tories-labour-leader-opposition0 -
Steady on. He certainly made the right decision, but he had little choice with a Brexit referendum to fight. If he'd joined the Merkel love in, it would have been a walk over for leave.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
0 -
If there's a virus vaccine that is even moderately effective (and which I think has to be a 90%+ chance now), then sure, it may well be with us for decades. But it will be with us in the same way influenza is, as a minor irritant.CarlottaVance said:
Guernsey CMO reckons it will be with us for "decades".ydoethur said:
If they go ahead. There’s no certainty this pandemic will be over or at least under control in time for that.CarlottaVance said:
that has cut through. There have been a cavalcade of major blunders before this - but so far they have defied gravity.JohnO said:Interesting to see the impact on the next round of Scottish polling. This seems to be the first major Sturgeon/SNP blunder for some time.
Perhaps buying off 2020's cohort will save their skin. After all the (likely) collapse in grades in 2021 will be after the Holyrood election.0 -
Siri, please show me cultural insecurity in the form of architecture.
https://twitter.com/jack_capener/status/1293225664804466692?s=200 -
It's certainly true that many of the wilder predictions about what would happen in Germany have not be born out by reality.eristdoof said:
There has been an extensive "Wilkommensplan", with all asylum immigrants being offerered German language courses, and those under 20 (I think) have been attending school in "welcome classes". These are now tailing off, with the younger pupils being integrated into the normal school classes. The welcome classes covered the main subjects but were without a fixed sylabus so the teacher could adapt to the abilities of the class. Remember many had had a reasonable schooling in Syria.kinabalu said:
It would. Causing much crime, overcrowding, social unease and tension? Or integrating pretty well and in the early stages of a sustained, long term contribution to an economy under pressure to support an ageing indigenous population?contrarian said:
It would be genuinely interesting to know how many of Merkel's million are still in Germany, where they are housed, and how they are doing.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
The appenticeship system is strong in Germany and adults assylum immigrants were, where possible, put on apprenticeship schemes which fitted with their skills from Syria.
I'm not claiming everything is fine. There are is certainly lots of tension still from those who disagreed with the policy, and when a group of assylum immigrants break the law this is big news in the media especially in the tabloids. But the immigrant wave of 2015 is no longer visibly queuing at the immigration office, or on the streets of Berlin or in temporary camps. If I had to summarise it in one sentence, i would say: the authorities have coped well with what could have turned into a really big problem.0 -
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
0 -
Indeed so. It was enlightened self interest.kle4 said:
I think it pretty reasonable to posit that it was not pure moral goodness that lay behind the decision, as is often implied, and I do think the impacts on other places which had not participated in the decision should be noted given that acting unilaterally is supposedly frowned upon, often by the same people praising Merkel's decision.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:0 -
Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.0 -
-
-
-
Not to mention the year groups from 2019 and previous who now have a vested interest in rubbishing the exam results of 2020 onwards.MikeL said:Next year they'll say it's not fair to have lower grades than this year - especially as those children will also have had their work interrupted by virus.
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.0 -
If the net impact is to bump up the results for deprived areas more than for affluent areas that is surely "every cloud" territory.another_richard said:Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.0 -
-
I knew that particular aspect would have you thrilled.kinabalu said:
If the net impact is to bump up the results for deprived areas more than for affluent areas that is surely "every cloud" territory.another_richard said:Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.0 -
But only if we treat it as a minor irritant.rcs1000 said:
If there's a virus vaccine that is even moderately effective (and which I think has to be a 90%+ chance now), then sure, it may well be with us for decades. But it will be with us in the same way influenza is, as a minor irritant.CarlottaVance said:
Guernsey CMO reckons it will be with us for "decades".ydoethur said:
If they go ahead. There’s no certainty this pandemic will be over or at least under control in time for that.CarlottaVance said:
that has cut through. There have been a cavalcade of major blunders before this - but so far they have defied gravity.JohnO said:Interesting to see the impact on the next round of Scottish polling. This seems to be the first major Sturgeon/SNP blunder for some time.
Perhaps buying off 2020's cohort will save their skin. After all the (likely) collapse in grades in 2021 will be after the Holyrood election.
And not obsess about 10k covid deaths per year just as we don't obsess about 10k flu deaths per year.2 -
Is the Georgia result worth a bet ?HYUFD said:0 -
-
Is it possible, would you say, to support Scottish independence AND like cricket?malcolmg said:
Massie is a unionist lickspittle, he could not be objective if it hit him on the face. Everything SNP or independence is bad to him, the fanny likes cricket, what can I say.Carnyx said:
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.
I have not in practice come across this particular combination but my circle is not wide these days.0 -
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.1 -
0
-
I don’t suppose they asked how the UK had done more than other European countries to accommodate refugees when the converse is true, bloody stupid Mail and Express readersHYUFD said:0 -
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.0 -
That's one of looking at it.kinabalu said:
If the net impact is to bump up the results for deprived areas more than for affluent areas that is surely "every cloud" territory.another_richard said:Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.
You can also say that the most intelligent and hard working will benefit less than those less so.
Or that teachers who over-predicted will get better results than those who didn't - I wonder what predictions might be next year
Prizes for all keeps the maximum number of people happy in the short term. But in the long term big, bad world awaits.1 -
Only if those who get bumped up are allowed to have some of the uni places reserved for the middle class kids.kinabalu said:
If the net impact is to bump up the results for deprived areas more than for affluent areas that is surely "every cloud" territory.another_richard said:Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.0 -
I've heard Martin McGuinness represented the Irish Republican & cricket fan faction.kinabalu said:
Is it possible, would you say, to support Scottish independence AND like cricket?malcolmg said:
Massie is a unionist lickspittle, he could not be objective if it hit him on the face. Everything SNP or independence is bad to him, the fanny likes cricket, what can I say.Carnyx said:
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.
I have not in practice come across this particular combination but my circle is not wide these days.0 -
There is enormous pressure on the dem veep pick, because 60% of Americans apparently don't think Biden would last a full term.Nigelb said:Fair comment....
https://twitter.com/mattduss/status/1293196835465465858
Who ever it is, voters think they are looking at the real president.0 -
USA Dem Veep slot -- things that don't matter
... but amused me anyway.
On checking Wikipedia, I see some plank has added to Kamala Harris's page that This article is about the American politician. It is not to be confused with the wrestler James "Kamala" Harris, and that Keisha Lance Bottoms has a shiny new photo (although it looks like this is because the old one became unavailable and not because she is about to be crowned).0 -
Do you think more people were under her policy given safe transit from Turkey to Germany than died drowning trying to get there by themselves?Nigelb said:
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.
As I understand it she refused to offer any safe transit and instead encouraged people to make their own journey that resulted in many people drowning. She has blood on her hands. You call it what you want.0 -
Back to real exams next year hopefully.another_richard said:
That's one of looking at it.kinabalu said:
If the net impact is to bump up the results for deprived areas more than for affluent areas that is surely "every cloud" territory.another_richard said:Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.
You can also say that the most intelligent and hard working will benefit less than those less so.
Or that teachers who over-predicted will get better results than those who didn't - I wonder what predictions might be next year
Prizes for all keeps the maximum number of people happy in the short term. But in the long term big, bad world awaits.
But my point is that a C by a child from a disadvantaged background at a tough school as a measure of achievement and potential equals an A by a child from an affluent background at an elite school.
So if that 1st child gets a B this time instead of the C - good.0 -
Mind bleach time.
Do any PBers live in Strood? I went on t'internet and I found...
https://mobile.twitter.com/Kent_Online/status/12927871126648504320 -
A foolish assumption, IMO.contrarian said:
There is enormous pressure on the dem veep pick, because 60% of Americans apparently don't think Biden would last a full term.Nigelb said:Fair comment....
https://twitter.com/mattduss/status/1293196835465465858
Who ever it is, voters think they are looking at the real president.
FWIW, I’m fairly confident Biden will see out a full term.0 -
I wouldn't use the term myself, but her behaviour (imposing massive externalities on other countries without their consent) is different to, albeit a consequence of, her policyNigelb said:
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.0 -
Unsurprising given the Feds there provoking the situation. I wonder how long it will take before they attempt de-escalation tactics.Andy_JS said:
It's almost as if when people are protesting Police violence that sending armed Police to violently suppress the protest is a bad idea. Who could have imagined that?0 -
Well.
Macclesfield have been relegated to the National League after the English Football League (EFL) won an appeal to inflict a harsher points penalty on the League Two club, with Stevenage staying up in the process.
In June an independent disciplinary commission imposed a two-point penalty and a £20,000 fine after the club were charged with misconduct related to the payment of player wages in March 2020.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12047375/macclesfield-town-relegated-stevenage-stay-in-league-two-as-efl-wins-appeal0 -
-
she washed her hands as they drowned?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you think more people were under her policy given safe transit from Turkey to Germany than died drowning trying to get there by themselves?Nigelb said:
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.
As I understand it she refused to offer any safe transit and instead encouraged people to make their own journey that resulted in many people drowning. She has blood on her hands. You call it what you want.1 -
☺ - yes.Pulpstar said:
I knew that particular aspect would have you thrilled.kinabalu said:
If the net impact is to bump up the results for deprived areas more than for affluent areas that is surely "every cloud" territory.another_richard said:Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.
Please see my post to @another_richard for elaboration.
I hope we can build this feature in from now on.
The "socioeconomic adjustment".0 -
I suspect it'll be all the rage for the next decade or so. Fifty years later? Forgotten about.Nigelb said:0 -
On topic, this government likes good headlines, so I'd expect a mahoosive u-turn, the only question is when.1
-
Jimmy Reid, trade unionist and variously Communist, Labour member & supporter of Scottish Independence, was a big cricket fan.kinabalu said:
Is it possible, would you say, to support Scottish independence AND like cricket?malcolmg said:
Massie is a unionist lickspittle, he could not be objective if it hit him on the face. Everything SNP or independence is bad to him, the fanny likes cricket, what can I say.Carnyx said:
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.
I have not in practice come across this particular combination but my circle is not wide these days.
Edit: I note it was the 10th anniversary of his death yesterday. His funeral service was attended by Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond, Sir Alex Ferguson and Sir Billy Connolly, not a bad haul changing reputations notwithstanding.2 -
I'd accept that I'm putting it bluntly, and that it is one that I feel strongly about.Charles said:
I wouldn't use the term myself, but her behaviour (imposing massive externalities on other countries without their consent) is different to, albeit a consequence of, her policyNigelb said:
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.
I think that setting up an open invitation, then failing to provide a means of people coming in a balanced and assessed way, and handing all those people over to traffickers some of whom would die through drowning justifies the description.
If Ms Merkel was going to implement such a policy, then she could have done it in a way that did not set up the weak to die, and provided at least some semblance of fairness through an assessment process and transport.
She chose not to do so. I think that justifies a harsh description.
1 -
Unless, and this will certainly be done to some extent, people make their own adjustments - "You got a B in 2020 ? So a D in a proper year".kinabalu said:
Back to real exams next year hopefully.another_richard said:
That's one of looking at it.kinabalu said:
If the net impact is to bump up the results for deprived areas more than for affluent areas that is surely "every cloud" territory.another_richard said:Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.
You can also say that the most intelligent and hard working will benefit less than those less so.
Or that teachers who over-predicted will get better results than those who didn't - I wonder what predictions might be next year
Prizes for all keeps the maximum number of people happy in the short term. But in the long term big, bad world awaits.
But my point is that a C by a child from a disadvantaged background at a tough school as a measure of achievement and potential equals an A by a child from an affluent background at an elite school.
So if that 1st child gets a B this time instead of the C - good.
And how those from a disadvantage background who would have got an A in any case and so don't benefit from the upgrading but will suffer from the loss of credibility the 2020 results have.
There will be plenty of losers from this but it will be a while for them to discover that.
I don't think it will be easy to revert to previous grading standards either - once the handouts of any variety start its usually too hard politically to stop them.0 -
Evening all
Plenty of poll news over which to cogitate and procrastinate this boiling hot Tuesday evening (it is in downtown East London).
In America, the Monmouth poll shows Trump cutting the gap slightly but Biden leads 51-41:
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_081120.pdf/
Those counties which were within 10 points either way in 2016 are now pro-Biden by 51-37.
On the State poll front, a 5-point leas for Biden in Wisconsin but he's only up 3 in Minnesota (which Clinton won by 1.5 last time) and it's a dead heat in Georgia (Biden +2) and North Carolina (Trump +1) so this election is still wide open.
Back in London, the first Mayoral poll I've seen for some while has Khan tantalisingly close to a first round victory with 49% leaving Bailey trailing on 26%. The unnamed LD candidate has 12% and the Greens 9%.
The first round in 2016 had Khan on 44%, Goldsmith on 32%, the Greens on 6% and the LDs on 4.5%.
As for the LDs, who should they choose now Siobhan Benita has withdrawn? As I'm no longer a Party member no one has to listen to me but I'd love to see Tom Brake stand - I suspect he won't.1 -
Actually, I think it was an off the cuff response to a emerging situation (and informed by the history of the East German "march to freedom") rather than a carefully considered policy.MattW said:
I'd accept that I'm putting it bluntly, and that it is one that I feel strongly about.Charles said:
I wouldn't use the term myself, but her behaviour (imposing massive externalities on other countries without their consent) is different to, albeit a consequence of, her policyNigelb said:
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.
I think that setting up an open invitation, then failing to provide a means of people coming in a balanced and assessed way, and handing all those people over to traffickers some of whom would die through drowning justifies the description.
If Ms Merkel was going to implement such a policy, then she could have done it in a way that did not set up the weak to die, and provided at least some semblance of fairness through an assessment process and transport.
She chose not to do so.
But what Cameron did was impressive and brave, despite the self-serving and unpleasant criticism he came in for as a result0 -
0
-
The question also talks about "England" specifically - opens up the risk that there may be some of the nuttier SNP element (anti-English) who instinctively side with another elseCarlottaVance said:Not so different.....
https://twitter.com/martinmccluskey/status/1293218977502703616?s=20
edit - referring to a "a great deal of sympathy" with London on 30%, Scotland on 24% and the rest of England on 16-18%.0 -
Isn't that a (Scottish) subsample?CarlottaVance said:Not so different.....
https://twitter.com/martinmccluskey/status/1293218977502703616?s=200 -
I agree on both counts. Germany in her mind presumably had to be and be seen to be mother of those in need. For all the reasons we know.Charles said:
Actually, I think it was an off the cuff response to a emerging situation (and informed by the history of the East German "march to freedom") rather than a carefully considered policy.MattW said:
I'd accept that I'm putting it bluntly, and that it is one that I feel strongly about.Charles said:
I wouldn't use the term myself, but her behaviour (imposing massive externalities on other countries without their consent) is different to, albeit a consequence of, her policyNigelb said:
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.
I think that setting up an open invitation, then failing to provide a means of people coming in a balanced and assessed way, and handing all those people over to traffickers some of whom would die through drowning justifies the description.
If Ms Merkel was going to implement such a policy, then she could have done it in a way that did not set up the weak to die, and provided at least some semblance of fairness through an assessment process and transport.
She chose not to do so.
But what Cameron did was impressive and brave, despite the self-serving and unpleasant criticism he came in for as a result0 -
Except make it possible - in defiance of a rising tide of introverted populism - for 1m plus people fleeing destitution and violence to have the sort of life that you and I take for granted.Philip_Thompson said:
She was the lesser, narrow minded politician.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Did she offer to take refugees from camps at the front line?
Did she offer safe transport and safe transit to a safe harbour?
She did nothing.0 -
It’s the classic modern victim paradox. There will be more victims from this change, but the pain will be less focussed so those that suffer won’t get help from the media.another_richard said:
Unless, and this will certainly be done to some extent, people make their own adjustments - "You got a B in 2020 ? So a D in a proper year".kinabalu said:
Back to real exams next year hopefully.another_richard said:
That's one of looking at it.kinabalu said:
If the net impact is to bump up the results for deprived areas more than for affluent areas that is surely "every cloud" territory.another_richard said:Has anyone picked up on this:
However, these grades, taken overall, would represent a significant improvement on previous years - including a jump of 20 percentage points in the pass rate for pupils from the most deprived areas.
So that was the reason the biggest downgrades happened for the most deprived areas.
But wise decision by Sturgeon - she didn't come into politics to safeguard the integrity of Scottish education exams but to achieve Scottish independence.
And keeping the maximum number of people happy until the next referendum is the way to achieve that.
You can also say that the most intelligent and hard working will benefit less than those less so.
Or that teachers who over-predicted will get better results than those who didn't - I wonder what predictions might be next year
Prizes for all keeps the maximum number of people happy in the short term. But in the long term big, bad world awaits.
But my point is that a C by a child from a disadvantaged background at a tough school as a measure of achievement and potential equals an A by a child from an affluent background at an elite school.
So if that 1st child gets a B this time instead of the C - good.
And how those from a disadvantage background who would have got an A in any case and so don't benefit from the upgrading but will suffer from the loss of credibility the 2020 results have.
There will be plenty of losers from this but it will be a while for them to discover that.
I don't think it will be easy to revert to previous grading standards either - once the handouts of any variety start its usually too hard politically to stop them.2 -
Hang on I thought according to the ons we had 96% compliance and here we have 65% which is about the figure I estimated I was seeing at Tesco's and was told I was making it upHYUFD said:
0 -
How long does a opinion poll/focus group take to report back?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, this government likes good headlines, so I'd expect a mahoosive u-turn, the only question is when.
0 -
Very much off topic...
I do give a great deal of thought about how the world might be a better place.
But this evening - I'm only thinking about Wolves v Sevilla in the Europa League.
I've supported my home town team since I was 5. That's 71 years ago now.
Win or lose - tomorrow I shall again be thinking about how we can make the world a better place for us all.
But tonight - I just want the Wolves to win !
And if they do - I'll be good for evermore.1 -
Yeah, we just seem to be reasonably immune from a need to vote for parties that espouse ant-immigrant & anti-refugee rhetoric, eg UKIP, TBP and the Tory party. Still, let's see if the linesman can build up some momentum with the gypsy traveller schtick.CarlottaVance said:Not so different.....
https://twitter.com/martinmccluskey/status/1293218977502703616?s=200 -
What are you talking about?junius said:Very much off topic...
I do give a great deal of thought about how the world might be a better place.
But this evening - I'm only thinking about Wolves v Sevilla in the Europa League.
I've supported my home town team since I was 5. That's 71 years ago now.
Win or lose - tomorrow I shall again be thinking about how we can make the world a better place for us all.
But tonight - I just want the Wolves to win !
And if they do - I'll be good for evermore.
If Wolves win, then you will be happier and... as a result... the world will be a better place for us all...0 -
The invitation was issued with no means offered of how they would reach Germany, which did what it did as well as creating chaos in Southern Europe plus the Schengen system.Charles said:
she washed her hands as they drowned?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you think more people were under her policy given safe transit from Turkey to Germany than died drowning trying to get there by themselves?Nigelb said:
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.
As I understand it she refused to offer any safe transit and instead encouraged people to make their own journey that resulted in many people drowning. She has blood on her hands. You call it what you want.
If anyone can show me that arrangements were made, I will withdraw my comment.
But I don't think they were.
Recorded deaths of migrants in Mediterranean Sea:
2014 3283
2015 4054
2016 5143
2017 3139
2018 2299
2019 1885
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1082077/deaths-of-migrants-in-the-mediterranean-sea/
The Merkel open-door policy was announced in August 2015.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-opens-its-gates-berlin-says-all-syrian-asylum-seekers-are-welcome-to-remain-as-britain-is-10470062.html
Yes - I do think she caused several thousand people to die by providing an invitation and no safe means for people to respond to that invitation. Given that Merkel was generally competent as an administrator I have no idea what happened, and I would expect her to have considered all aspects.
So, on balance I am sticking with "despicable" because I think she is good enough to have done it properly, though I guess you could go for phrases like "reckless" if you wish.
0 -
Depends on the sample size/the number of questions asked/mode of polling.Stuartinromford said:
How long does a opinion poll/focus group take to report back?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, this government likes good headlines, so I'd expect a mahoosive u-turn, the only question is when.
But you can get a decent sized poll done in a day and a bit, and a focus group in a similar time frame, the hard work is writing up the respondents views.1 -
My dad - even during his working class uncle tom tory phase - was a massive fan of Jimmy Reid.Theuniondivvie said:
Jimmy Reid, trade unionist and variously Communist, Labour member & supporter of Scottish Independence, was a big cricket fan.kinabalu said:
Is it possible, would you say, to support Scottish independence AND like cricket?malcolmg said:
Massie is a unionist lickspittle, he could not be objective if it hit him on the face. Everything SNP or independence is bad to him, the fanny likes cricket, what can I say.Carnyx said:
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.
I have not in practice come across this particular combination but my circle is not wide these days.
Edit: I note it was the 10th anniversary of his death yesterday. His funeral service was attended by Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond, Sir Alex Ferguson and Sir Billy Connolly, not a bad haul changing reputations notwithstanding.
"If all communists were like that I'd consider it."
Still remember him saying that.1 -
From the article...rottenborough said:
The truth was far more mundane. A few protesters among the many thousands appear to have burned a single Bible — and possibly a second — for kindling to start a bigger fire. None of the other protesters seemed to notice or care.
So conservatives criticised protestors for burning the Bible because... drum roll... they burned a Bible.
But it's a "Russian Hit!!!!!!" because, presumably, this is seen as a way of drawing the sting from a legitimate criticism.
edit: and in what way is "using a Bible as kindling for a bigger fire" any different to "burning a Bible"?2 -
As I remember Jimmy Reid was rather scathing about Arthur.kinabalu said:
My dad - even during his working class uncle tom tory phase - was a massive fan of Jimmy Reid.Theuniondivvie said:
Jimmy Reid, trade unionist and variously Communist, Labour member & supporter of Scottish Independence, was a big cricket fan.kinabalu said:
Is it possible, would you say, to support Scottish independence AND like cricket?malcolmg said:
Massie is a unionist lickspittle, he could not be objective if it hit him on the face. Everything SNP or independence is bad to him, the fanny likes cricket, what can I say.Carnyx said:
Massie is finding it unreasonable that a party focussed heavily on the student demographic should focus also on its concerns. Rather odd of him.CarlottaVance said:The Scot Greens caved! Who saw that coming?
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1293223482273259529?s=20
The SNP administration is a minority one, pace those PBers who go berserk about alleged one-party states. So of course the Greens claim the credit. It's not as if the SCUP MSPs would vote to help the SNP at all, still less the SLAB ones (on the Bain Principle), and I'm not sure what the LDs think except SNP bad.
I have not in practice come across this particular combination but my circle is not wide these days.
Edit: I note it was the 10th anniversary of his death yesterday. His funeral service was attended by Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond, Sir Alex Ferguson and Sir Billy Connolly, not a bad haul changing reputations notwithstanding.
"If all communists were like that I'd consider it."
Still remember him saying that.0 -
That I think I might agree with - but I don't think an off-the-cuff response for whatever reason it was can be justified in those circs.Charles said:
Actually, I think it was an off the cuff response to a emerging situation (and informed by the history of the East German "march to freedom") rather than a carefully considered policy.MattW said:
I'd accept that I'm putting it bluntly, and that it is one that I feel strongly about.Charles said:
I wouldn't use the term myself, but her behaviour (imposing massive externalities on other countries without their consent) is different to, albeit a consequence of, her policyNigelb said:
One might disagree with her policy, but ‘despicable’ is quite a stretch.kinabalu said:
She exposed the hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of lesser, narrow minded politicians. This is not my definition of despicable.MattW said:
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.kle4 said:
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.Philip_Thompson said:
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.kinabalu said:
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.rcs1000 said:
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.Flatlander said:
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?rcs1000 said:UK: number of asylum seekers by year
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Cameron was brave and principled.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Says rather more about the one who employed the epithet, IMO.
I think that setting up an open invitation, then failing to provide a means of people coming in a balanced and assessed way, and handing all those people over to traffickers some of whom would die through drowning justifies the description.
If Ms Merkel was going to implement such a policy, then she could have done it in a way that did not set up the weak to die, and provided at least some semblance of fairness through an assessment process and transport.
She chose not to do so.
But what Cameron did was impressive and brave, despite the self-serving and unpleasant criticism he came in for as a result0 -
Absolutely! No "othering" in Scottish politics! No "blaming another country" for Scotland's failings. You must be so proud!Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, we just seem to be reasonably immune from a need to vote for parties that espouse ant-immigrant & anti-refugee rhetoric, eg UKIP, TBP and the Tory party. Still, let's see if the linesman can build up some momentum with the gypsy traveller schtick.CarlottaVance said:Not so different.....
https://twitter.com/martinmccluskey/status/1293218977502703616?s=20
0 -
Anti immigrant and anti refugee rhetoric will be punishable by jail when ayatollah Yousaf's bill comes in anyway.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, we just seem to be reasonably immune from a need to vote for parties that espouse ant-immigrant & anti-refugee rhetoric, eg UKIP, TBP and the Tory party. Still, let's see if the linesman can build up some momentum with the gypsy traveller schtick.CarlottaVance said:Not so different.....
https://twitter.com/martinmccluskey/status/1293218977502703616?s=20
The linesman will be campaigning from prison, if he hasn;t already claimed asylum in England.0 -
That street was a favourite graffiti location when it was being built....Theuniondivvie said:Siri, please show me cultural insecurity in the form of architecture.
https://twitter.com/jack_capener/status/1293225664804466692?s=200 -
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
Some very tight seats here, not a lot of work for the Lib Dems to triple their seat count0
This discussion has been closed.